The Evolution of a Creationist

The Evolution of a Creationist

TheEvolution of a Creationist

by Dr. Jobe Martin

A LAYMEN’S GUIDEto the conflict between

THE BIBLE

AND

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Biblical Discipleship PublishersRockwall, Texas

Copyright © 1994, 2002 byDr. Jobe Martin

Published byBiblical Discipleship Publishers2212 Chisholm TrailRockwall, Texas 75032 (972) 771-0568

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Martin, Jobe R. 1940-The Evolution of a Creationist

288 p. cm.ISBN 0-9643665-0-91. Religion-Christian. 2. Creation Science.3. Creation/Evolution debate. 4. Christian Gospel

I. Title II. Title: A Layman’s Guide to the Conflict Betweenthe Bible and Evolutionary Theory

All Scripture quotations in this book are taken from the KingJames Version of the Bible.

Fifth Printing, Revised 2002, 75,000 in print

Printed in the United States of America

NOTICE: The goal of this book is to provide the reader witheasily accessible information on the creation versus evolutioncontroversy. Any part of this book may be reproduced forpersonal or classroom use as long as it is not sold for profit.Please note that there are quotations in this book fromcopyrighted materials which may reserve all of their legal rights.

Thou art worthy, O Lord,to receive glory and honor and power:

for thou hast created all things, andfor thy pleasure they are and were created

(Revelation 4:11).

This book is dedicated to myCreator and Savior,

the Lord Jesus ChristTo God alone be the glory.

Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us,but unto thy name give glory,

for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake(Psalm 115:1).

All who gave of their timeand talents in producing this book

did so by God’s grace and for His eternal glory,for our sufficiency comes from God

(2 Corinthians 3:5),and without Him we can do nothing

(John 15:5b).

TABLE OF

ContentsPREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

MARVELS OF GOD’S CREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

CHAPTER 1 — The Evolution Of A Creationist . . . . . .19

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39The Bombardier Beetle

CHAPTER 2 — ...And Then Came Assumptions . . . . .43

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57The Incubator Bird

CHAPTER 3 — Has God Been Toppled? . . . . . . . . . . . .61

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87The Black And Yellow Garden Spider

CHAPTER 4 — “Missing Links” Are Missing . . . . . . . .91

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105The Gecko Lizard And The Human Ear

CHAPTER 5 — Orangutans, Monkeys And Man . . . .109

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131The Giraffe

CHAPTER 6 — The Ten CommandmentsAnd The Days Of The Creation Week . . . . . . .135

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159The Angler Fish

CHAPTER 7 — Earth’s Pre-Flood Water CanopyAnd The Dinosaur Mystery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189The Beaver

CHAPTER 8 — Do Mutations ProduceNew Life Forms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209The Chicken Egg

CHAPTER 9 — Earth: Young Or Old?Give Me Facts, Not Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .212

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249The Chuckwalla Lizard

CHAPTER 10 — Deception In The Textbooks . . . . . . .251

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #10 . . . . . . . . . . . . .265The Woodpecker

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

EPILOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278

INDEXSubject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286

PREFACEThis book is a condensation and simplification of more

than thirty years of studies that moved me from unquestioningbelief in Darwinian evolution to undoubting trust in thespecial six-day creation by God as presented in the biblicalaccount.

It is my conviction that a simple discussion of the majorquestions in the creation/evolution controversy is needed forthose men and women who have little or no background inscience. Thus, I have attempted to address pertinent issues assimply as possible—fully recognizing that those who havestudied intensively in specialized areas of science may accusethis book of being too simplistic.

The book touches on the evolution of a creationist (me),but emphasizes the inherent conflicts between evolutionarytheory and the Bible. This work is a compilation of thoughtsand writings that God used to change my belief system, myworldview.

It is my conviction that the Old and New Testaments ofthe Bible are God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. TheBible is to be interpreted in the normal, historical,grammatical, literal fashion. Yes, the Bible uses figures ofspeech, but they are evident when used. The King JamesVersion of the Bible is quoted throughout because of itsuniversal acceptance. Some of you may not be familiar withKing James English. In the quoted Scriptures you will noticepronouns referring to God are not capitalized and certainpunctuations and capitalized words seem out of place. This isthe way things were done in King James English (unless Ihave made a mistake in the transcript).

When I use the term “evolution,” I am referring to the ideathat after the “Big Bang” and after the earth was supposedlyformed (by an accidental, mindless, totally random chance

10

process), it took millions of years to produce organicmolecules and then many more millions of years ofevolutionary processes (mutations and natural selection) toproduce people (the molecules-to-life-to-man theory, alsocalled macroevolution).

For those of you who read with extreme concentration,never missing a word or a thought, please overlook therepetitions. Some of us need repetition so that we can betterunderstand a concept. Others of us do not have the time toread a book in one sitting. Therefore, I have purposelyrepeated certain things throughout the book forreinforcement.

When speaking about origins (Where did I come from?),we are dealing with a system of faith. It may be faith ineternal God or faith in eternal matter/energy. This book willattempt to help the reader discern which system of thoughtabout our beginnings he or she believes. Is it the impersonal,plus chance, plus billions of years? Or is there an infiniteCreator/Designer capable of creating the universe and all itcontains in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago?

Do we creationists have a different set of fossils, differentliving creatures and a different earth to study in contrast to theevolutionists? No, we study the same data. But how can twosuch opposite ideas come about if we are exposed to theidentical information? The answers will be dealt with in thefollowing pages. It has everything to do with yourworldview—your basic set of beliefs and whether thesebeliefs include God.

If we say we are Christians, then we need to know whatwe can believe about the biblical account of creation, and notaccording to our politically correct humanistic evolutionisticculture. It is a shame that most professing Christians havejoined the ranks of evolution via theistic evolution andprogressive creationism. Even to this day, most Christians

Preface 11

have never been exposed to biblical creationism. Many ofGod’s people, when confronted with the evidences for biblicalcreationism, joyfully accept the truth.

I would encourage parents and young people to startbuilding a personal library of good creationist literature.Helpful creationist books and organizations have beenincluded for your reference. Many high school and collegestudents are writing reports from a creationist perspective.Professors can appreciate excellently documented scholarshipeven when they disagree with the creationist’s position.

It is a known fact that we Christians are losing 70% of ourevangelical Christian young people by the end of four yearsof college. My friends with Campus Crusade for Christ claimthat if they do not reach Christian college freshmen withintheir first six weeks on campus, they have already lost themto other worldviews. Christian youth are buying into otherworldviews presented to them on the secular campuses. Theyare deserting their Christian roots by the thousands!

Most Humanist, Marxist, New Age, Islamic andPostmodern professors have an agenda—they want the mindsand hearts of our kids! Most of us Christians do not havenearly as well defined an agenda. We send our children off tothese schools and universities unable to defend their faith. Asthey go to various places for parts of their education, theyshould be equipped and ready to live out Scriptures such as 1Peter 3: 13-17:

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of thatwhich is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake,happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither betroubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and beready always to give an answer to every man that asketh youa reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil ofyou, as evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse

12 THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST

your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will ofGod be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

We send our children out as mission fields rather than asmissionaries! Many exuberant Christian youth areshipwrecked in their faith by the subtle and scientific-sounding arguments of evolution and the intimidation tacticsof certain teachers and professors.

Dads and Moms, things in the classrooms are not at alllike they were when we went to school! May I give you anexample? A Christian student who graduated at the top of hisclass at a major secular university wrote a paper (5-1-2001)for his senior Microbiology course entitled, “Comparing andContrasting the Regulation of the Lactose and GalactoseOperons and Regulons in Streptococcus thermophilus,Streptococcus mutans and Lactococcus lactis.” On the firstpage of his paper he made a HUGE mistake that sent hisprofessor balistic. The student wrote on his opening page, andI quote: “This genetic group-control mechanism is awonderfully designed informational system….” And hisprofessor launched into outer space!

What’s the big problem? The student used the word“design.” This implies “Designer” which implies “purpose”which smacks of “GOD.” So here are the intimidatingcomments of the senior-level professor, and again I quoteverbatim (exactly as the professor wrote):

Aaron-I suggest you grow up or think very hard about your majorin Biology. Creationism is not science-it is not testable, it cannotpredict future behavior.- [This paper is] poorly focused immature+ pedantic much irrelevant information blatantly apologetic.Inappropriate for a science course. Poor science. Science is notanti-religion but your religion is clearly anti-science. Pickanother field where personal opinions are all that matters. Isuppose that my reaction will feed your martyr complex, but sobe it. I too am a devout Christian. I believe the Bible is the

Preface 13

inspired Word of God-I believe I am saved through theredeeming power of Christ Jesus. However, my faith is notsimplistic, literalist, inconsistent, uninformed + prejudiced asyours appears to be. Again, think hard about your major and yourcourse selections for the Fall.

Parents, do you see what I mean? With intimidationtactics like the ones above, the average Christian studentraises the white flag, surrenders, and says, “Okay, Professor,what do you want me to believe?” We are losing 70% of ourChristian kids. Our children are thoroughly confused byteachers who claim to be “Christian,” but attack even theslightest hint that the student might really believe in God. It isworse if they believe in His biblical account of creation!These arguments are not limited to “science” classes, but arepresented in such courses as freshman English, PhysicalEducation, Sociology and Religion!

This book will attempt to point out the distinct differencesbetween evolution and creation. Hopefully the readers willrealize that the Biblical approach to the study of origins istrustworthy. The Bible is not exhaustive when it deals withscience, but it is true.

My personal thanks go to all of the courageous authorswho have influenced me and suffered for the sake ofrighteousness in their endeavors to glorify our Lord throughtheir writings. The first book that I read on this subject (in1971) impacted me greatly. It was The Genesis Flood by Dr.Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. The second book waswritten by Dr. Bolton Davidheizer and is entitled Evolutionand the Christian Faith. These two books played a significantrole in my evolution out of evolutionary thinking.

I know that apart from God’s Spirit working withinpeople’s hearts to convict them of truth, mere human effortsto make an apologetic and change people’s minds are futile. Ialso believe that the “Battle is the Lord’s” (2 Chron. 20:15)


and yet He somehow delights to use His saints in the battles—for His ultimate eternal glory. I humbly bow before myCreator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and am trustingHim to use His Word to speak to your heart. He is faithful (2Tim. 2:13) and His Word is true (John 17:17) and living andpowerful and sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12)and will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). As God says in hisrevealed Word, the Bible, there will come a day when everyknee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ isLord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10, 11)! Histruth will ultimately prevail—eternally!

Preface 15

MARVELS OFGOD’S CREATION

At the end of each chapter (and within some chapters), a“Marvel of God’s Creation” will be inserted to display theuniqueness of certain creatures in God’s creation.Evolutionary belief is based on the premise that through aseries of chance mutations and natural selection, plants andanimals evolve new parts and abilities as they are needed.Textbooks talk about fossil turtles and fossil cockroachesbeing several hundred million years old. And yet these fossilcreatures look exactly like living turtles and cockroaches looktoday. So why have they not evolved and changed over themillions of years? “They were perfectly suited for their nichein nature and did not need to change.” So evolution in lifeforms does not happen unless it needs to???

Evolution simply cannot explain the origin of the uniqueanimals discussed in this book. There is no way theirexistence could have happened apart from special creation.They would have “died in process” trying to evolve thenecessary equipment and functions to maintain life. Brilliantmen have spent lifetimes attempting to prove that creaturesevolved from and into other kinds of creatures. That job hasyet to be accomplished!

16

AN ADMONITION

If you have time to readthis book today, but have not

taken the time to read your Bible,then you do not have time

to read this book!

17

The LordBy wisdom hath founded the earth;

By understanding hath He established the heavens.By His knowledge the depths are broken up,

and the clouds drop down the dew

(Proverbs 3:19,20).

1THE EVOLUTION OF A

CREATIONIST

Frustration was not an adequate word to describe myfeelings! Which was true—evolution and billions of

years, or creation in six 24-hour days? Two of my students atBaylor College of Dentistry had challenged me to investigatethe possibility that the God of the Bible had createdeverything in six 24-hour days, as described in the firstchapter of Genesis. My first reaction was, “Only an ignorantfool would believe in those ancient myths of the Book ofGenesis.”

I was an evolutionist. My years as a biology major atBucknell University and a dental major at the University ofPittsburgh had convinced me that we are here because ofevolutionary processes—all very logical and explainablethrough the Scientific Method. This was A.D. 1971! We wereliving in the days of modern, hi-tech-science, which hadclaimed proof of evolution to be true. And yet, these twodental students were brilliant young men. They held advanceddegrees in the sciences. Surely, there must be a simple way toprove that their six-day view of creation was wrong. One ofthe questions those two dental students asked me was this:“Doctor Martin, have you ever heard of the concept of Godcreating things with the appearance of age?” At that point inmy pilgrimage, I certainly had not, but it sparked a desire tolearn more. And thus the frustration began.

19

FLASHBACKThe seed of my frustration was planted in September of

1966. I was attending USAF Basic Medical Training atWichita Falls, Texas. It was the height of the Vietnam War. Ihad been given orders to report in at Andrews Air Force Basein Washington, D.C., upon completion of Basic Training. Iwas to be one of five dentists to serve the pilots and crews ofPresident Johnson’s presidential fleet—the 89th MilitaryAirlift Wing.

The seed was a brief prayer. As I sat at the Officers Clubthat September night, I decided to clear things up with theGod of the Bible (if He was really there). If He could part theRed Sea, turn water into wine, and raise the dead, He couldanswer a simple prayer. This was my prayer: “God, if You areup there, You have two choices. Either You can show me thegirl I am going to marry, or You will see the wildest Air Forceofficer You have ever seen.” I instantly thought, “Whew,nobody heard that prayer, I’m going out and live it up!”

Except God did hear that prayer. I met my wife-to-be thatvery day! We had a date the next night, and I told Jenna Deethat I was going to marry her on that first date. I knew Iwould. The God of the Bible had answered my specific prayeron the day that I uttered it to Him.

Upon my arrival to Washington, D.C., I decided to go tochurch and learn more about God. As I left church that firstSunday, the pastor shook my hand and asked if there wasanything he could do to help me spiritually. I told him thatanything he could do would help me spiritually, because atthat point I was a big zero. Pastor Charlie Warford asked meto get up on Monday mornings at 6:00 a.m. and read the Biblewith him. I used to like to argue with people about the Bible,but I’d never really read it. So, we read Matthew, Mark, andLuke, and we were in the gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16,when God got my attention. This verse said, “For God so


loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, thatwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but haveeverlasting life.” It was the first phrase that got my attention.I was part of the world, had a heavy commitment to the world,and I knew it. That verse said to my heart that God loved me!I got on my knees with Pastor Warford, asked the Lord Jesusto forgive my sin and committed my life to Him. The seed hadbeen planted and was beginning to sprout.

At the point in time I came to faith in Jesus Christ as mySavior, my sins were all forgiven, and I was given everlastinglife. But something else happened which I was only later torealize. I had gone from being an “agnostic evolutionist” tobeing a “theistic evolutionist.” That meant that now I believedin God and that He used evolution over billions of years tocreate the universe and everything in it. Somehow I did notunderstand, at this early stage in spiritual development, thatpure naturalistic evolution absolutely eliminates God. Ihonestly believed that evolution was the only scientificallyaccurate option for how we got here. It was the “Big Bang,”plus time, plus mindless random-chance processes. In otherwords, “nothing plus no one equals everything,” or “slimeplus time equals me.”

EVERYONE BELIEVES BY FAITHMy university science professors had not told me that I

was making some significant assumptions by believing in theBig Bang model. The big bang is the belief that the universeand all the matter it contained was once so denselycompressed that the matter was invisible. This “cosmicspeck” underwent a sudden mega-explosion that is labeled byevolutionary scientists as the “Big Bang.”1 Many scientists

The Evolution of a Creationist 21

1 “The universe began as a particle that was infinitely dense and occupied nospace.” Robert Augros and George Stanciu, The New Story of Science (Lake Bluff,Illinois: Regnrey Gateway Pubs., 1984), pp. 54-64 (condensation and paraphrase).

believe that this explosion occurred between nine and twentybillion years ago. Just think of the tremendous, inexact rangeof time proposed by various evolutionists for the occurrenceof this theoretical Big Bang…eleven-plus billion years!

To accept the Big Bang, one must assume that theexistence of matter and energy is eternal—at least if youdesire to be logical. Some evolutionists buy into the idea ofquantum fluctuation (the idea that there was nothing therebefore the Big Bang and then, “BANG,” and there wassomething). This seems like a large portion of imagination tome, but this is how quantum physics is trying to detour aroundthe law of cause-and-effect! The Big Bang model, we are told,only attempts to explain the ordering of matter and energy,not their origin. Of course, explosions are most oftenobserved to cause disorder, not order. Logically, if there is noGod, matter had to be eternally present before the Big Bangor there would have been nothing there to go BOOM! Wediscover here that everyone on earth believes in somethingeternal by faith. It is either faith in eternal matter and energy,faith in an eternally reoccurring mystical quantum fluctuationor faith in eternal God.

FAITH IN CREATION OR IN EVOLUTIONWhy is this belief by faith? Because it is beyond the reach

of science to test. There are no experiments that can test whoor what was here when the universe began. Consequently,when we speak of origins, neither the creation model nor theevolution model can be tested or verified by reproduciblescientific experiments. This takes both models of origins outof the realm of science and into the arena of religiously-generated faith. Many evolutionists refuse to admit that theiridea of the origin of all things is a faith-based system!

Theist and atheist both live by faith. Our basic set ofbeliefs, or system of faith, or way of thinking is our


worldview. It is what we believe about life. Our worldviewdictates our values and character. Behavior is the outwardexpression of our root worldview. When our children comehome from school or college exhibiting a different type ofbehavior, it is because they are buying (or have bought) intoa different religious worldview. How we view life, then,depends on what “worldview glasses” we are wearing(Proverbs 23:7). Are the worldview glasses we Christians arewearing influenced more by our culture or by the Bible?

Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemethright unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways ofdeath.” As we think about the creation/evolution controversy,what glasses are you wearing? Does it seem right to you, evenas a Christian, to have on the evolutionary glasses of thehumanistic worldview? In other words, if God says he createdeverything in a normal week, why do we become theisticevolutionists or progressive creationists and believe that Godused the Big Bang and various forms of evolution overmillions of years to create? We have been deeply tainted bythe evolutionary culture in which we live! Rather thanbelieving the Bible literally, we prefer to be “politicallycorrect.” Even we Christians seem to have “loved the praiseof men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43 and 5:44).

ARE MATTER AND ENERGY ETERNAL?Some evolutionists believe that if matter and energy were

eternal, they would be—before the time of the big bang—in astate of equilibrium. Equilibrium means everything would beequal and non-reactive. A car is like that. The car sits there inneutral (equilibrium) and doesn’t do anything until it is turnedon. Starting the engine explodes the gasoline, which gives thepower to move the car. Science tells us that when matter issomewhere for a long enough time (eternity past), it willeventually stop doing anything, all the possible reactions


would have already occurred, and it would just sit there like acar in neutral. This is a part of the second law ofthermodynamics that physicists call Zeroeth Entropy. Beforethe Big Bang, all matter and energy, if eternal, would be inneutral (equilibrium). It’s like the car when it is turned off andin park on a flat driveway. It will not move until someonestarts it up.

So, if everything was in neutral before the Big Bang, whatmade the Big Bang go BOOM? If you believe in the Big Bangand eternal matter and energy, you believe by faith that thisinfinitely dense speck of matter (which would have infinitelypowerful gravity pulling inward) somehow overcame its owninward pulling forces and went “BANG,” shooting itscontents out, thus simultaneously creating time and space!This gargantuan cosmic explosion was of such a magnitudethat it ultimately resulted in the production of all the contentsof the universe. To make stars and galaxies and oceans andmountains and flowers seems to require un-random designand purpose. This has never been observed to occur througha chaotic explosion. Belief in a mega-explosion thatultimately results in order and regularity and predictabilityand beauty and music and emotions (such as love) appears tome to demand a huge volume of faith.

So, then, the question becomes either, “Do I believe byfaith in eternal matter and energy?” (This gives me theproblem of how did the Big Bang go BOOM?) or, “Do Ibelieve by faith in eternal God?” Everyone believes by faithin something eternal.

Philip E. Johnson, a First Amendment attorney whotaught law at the University of California, Berkeley, believesthat the media all too often presents creationists as if they donot use or understand science. Johnson writes:

In fact, there is a great deal more to the creation/evolutioncontroversy than meets the eye, or rather than meets the carefully


cultivated media stereotype of “creationists” as Bible-quotingknow-nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific evidence.The creationists may be wrong about many things, but they haveat least one very important point to argue, a point that has beenthoroughly obscured by all the attention paid to Noah’s flood andother side issues. What science educators propose to teach as“evolution,” and label as fact, is based not upon anyincontrovertible empirical evidence (scientifically proven facts,ed.), but upon a highly controversial philosophicalpresupposition. The controversy over evolution is therefore notgoing to go away as people become better educated on thesubject. On the contrary, the more people learn about thephilosophical content of what scientists are calling the “fact ofevolution,” the less they are going to like it.2

Like many of us, Johnson is concerned that public schoolscience teachers and university professors have moved out ofthe realm of “science” and into the sphere of religiousteaching (faith) when they address the evolution of moleculesto man as scientific fact. In my years as a science major atBucknell University and the University of Pittsburgh, I wastaught that science and fossils prove evolution to be true—that the important transitional steps in the evolution of onecreature into another “occurred within its gaps.” I now agreewith Johnson when he questions current evolutionary theoryand its adherents. The evolutionary model’s “...mechanismaccomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonderscan be demonstrated, but because they (evolutionists) cannotthink of a more plausible explanation for the existence ofwonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., abeing or force outside the world of Nature.”3 The politicalcorrectness of our day dictates the abhorrence of anycredibility or reality to a literal God who is greater thanscience itself, even though He created true science!


2 Philip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism(Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 1,2.

3 Ibid., p. 7.

GOD, THE CREATORThough the idea of Creator God outside the world of

nature is unacceptable to the majority of evolutionists, theBible teaches that eternal God created the universe, and Hedid so by and through and for His only eternal Son, the LordJesus Christ. The eternal Son was there in the beginning ofcreation as can be seen in the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26,“Let us make man in our image, according to ourlikeness.” That He, the Son, was instrumental in the creationof all things is taught in the Gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Godand the Word was God. The same was in the beginning withGod. All things were made by him; and without him was notany thing made that was made. In him was life; and the lifewas the light of men (John 1:1-4).

These verses of John verify that Jesus is the Creator, andthat all things were made by Him. The book of Hebrews isanother testimony that Jesus is the Creator of the world:“God... Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son,whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom alsohe made the worlds;...” (Hebrews 1:1-2). The letter to theColossians also refers to the Lord Jesus as the Creator of allthings, and it goes on to name Him as the One Who holds allthings together (Colossians 1:15-17).

Scientists say, “We have a problem. There are not enoughstars and moons and asteroids to hold the universe together.”This is called the “Missing Mass” problem. Everythingshould be flying apart, but it is staying together. A creationistcan say, “I know what holds the universe together in spite ofthe ‘Missing Mass’ problem—the Lord Jesus, the Creatorholds it all together by His great power” (Hebrews 1 andColossians 1). When the Bible refers to science, it may not beexhaustive, but it is accurate. We can trust it.


When scientists choose to believe that God the Creatordoes not exist they are forced to come up with alternativeexplanations. They observe that our universe is holdingtogether. They calculate that there is not enough mass to holdit together. Now they have a problem, so they must make upan alternative. In this case, the alternative I was taught incollege in the late 50’s was “invisible, cold, dark matter”holds the universe together. I was also taught that neutrinos(called by some scientists as “the smallest speck of reality inthe universe”) had no mass. But the most recent alternative toGod’s power holding everything together is neutrinos. It isnow popular in some evolutionary circles to believe thatneutrinos have so much mass that they hold the universetogether, even though the mass of a neutrino has yet to bereliably established.

The Scriptures tell us that God holds the atom togetherand He holds the universe together. The world came intobeing, not as a result of a chance, cosmic explosion, but as aspecial creation with a unique purpose. God purposed to havepeople who would bring glory to Himself and with whom Hecould have fellowship. Ultimately, the Creator would stepinto time and His creation to become the Savior. But moreabout that later.

In the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament, a word isrepeated to emphasize it. For example, Isaiah 6:3 usesrepetition to tell us that God is infinitely holy: “Holy, holy,holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of hisglory.” You cannot get any holier than God. The Hebrewlanguage uses the same word three times to show the totalabsolute holiness of God. In a similar way, Genesisemphasizes the fact of creation. Moses, under the inspirationof the Holy Spirit, writes:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day thatGod created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male


and female created he them; and blessed them, and calledtheir name Adam, in the day when they were created(Genesis 5:1-2, Emphasis added)

MAN, THE CREATEDMan was created, created, created! You cannot get any

more emphatic than that. The Bible does not say manevolved, evolved, evolved. If God wanted to indicate that manhad come about through ages of evolutionary changes, Hesurely could have. But His Word is Truth and the Truth saysman was created. Mankind is not even Homo sapiens. Homosapiens is a man-made term that puts us into the animalkingdom. We are created in the image of God distinctly abovethe animal kingdom to take dominion over the other life-forms on earth.

Not only did the Lord Jesus create man, He created manin God’s own image. Did God, who “spoke the creation intoexistence,” have to use millions of years of evolutionarymistakes to finally achieve His own image in man? Of coursenot! The millions of years idea further detracts from God’somnipotence.

If people really did evolve from monkey-like creatures,then the question arises, “What about the Virgin Mary? WasMary, the human mother of the Lord Jesus, composed ofmade-over monkey genes?” If Mary was a highly evolved,distant relative of monkeys, then is our Lord also geneticallyrelated to the primates? Mary was created in the image ofGod, not in the lineage of monkeys.

The Bible tells us that God created man in His own imageas an instant creation (Genesis 1:27). Jesus, the Creator,verifies this in Mark 10:6. He states: “But from thebeginning of the creation, God made them male andfemale.” The context of Mark 10:6 is divorce. We all knowthat cockroaches, rabbits and rats do not get divorces. The


creator is talking about people. People get divorces. TheCreator of one-man/one-woman ’til-death-do-us-partmarriage tells us that divorce is not His solution to problemsof pride and selfishness in marriage. (If you would like to readsome of what the Bible says about this, please refer toMalachi 2:13-16; Deuteronomy 24:1-5; Matthew 5:31,32;Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians7:10-16; Philippians 2:1-4; Ephesians 4:25-32; Colossians3:12,13; 1 Peter 3:8,9; also www.biblicaldiscipleship.org.)People, created instantly in God’s image, were there in thebeginning.4

If we believe what the Bible says (and this book will arguethat there is no “scientific” proof not to), Mark 10:6 alonedestroys all evolutionary teaching. There were male andfemale people on earth from the beginning. The Creator saysso. That leaves no room at all for billions of years oftransitional animal forms (missing links) gradually evolvingfrom a single cell through monkey-like creatures to man.[Remember: Evolution requires millions and billions of years,not just hundreds or even thousands. Large gaps of time in thegenealogies in the Bible will be discussed later.]

MAN CREATED FULLY MATUREIf it is true that there were people here as male and female

people from the very beginning, then God created them asinstant adults. He created Adam, a full-grown (totally mature)adult who was only one second old. From Adam’s rib (takenduring the first general anesthetic!), God created instantly thefirst woman, Eve, complete and mature. Adam woke up anddid not see a baby girl. He was introduced to Eve, his fully-grown wife. If you are a theistic evolutionist (one whobelieves that God used the Big Bang and the process of


4 I heard this argument first on a tape dealing with the evolution/creationcontroversy by Floyd Jones Ministries, 8222 Glencliffe Lane, Houston, TX 77070.

www.biblicaldiscipleship.org

evolution over millions of years to produce molecules, lifeand man), or even a progressive creationist (one who believesthat God caused the Big Bang about 16 billion years ago andthen progressively created everything over millions of years),you have a problem here. Do you know of any evolutioniststhat believe that women evolve from ribs? Genesis teachesthat God made Eve from Adam’s rib. Yes, this means that Evewas “sourced” in Adam, but she was still hand-fashionedfrom the rib that God took from Adam’s side. If, as someprogressive creationists claim, no rib surgery on Adam wasinvolved, then why does it say that God “...closed up theflesh...” (Genesis 2:21b) in Adam after taking out one of hisribs?

If, when Adam first saw Eve, he would have asked, “Eve,how old are you?” she would have answered, “One minuteold, Adam.” She was created with full maturity. She lookedperhaps 25 years old, but she had to wait a whole year tocelebrate her first birthday. If Eve said, “Adam, I’m hungry,”he could have reached out and picked a ripe peach, though itstree was only three days old. God also created fully maturetrees. They looked old, and bore ripe fruit, but they were onlythree days old. These three-day-old trees were growing in soilthat was created fully developed. In this soil, ferns werethriving and flowers blooming. Huge, minutes-to-hours olddinosaurs were walking the earth with Adam and Eve.(Fortunately, they ate plants and not people at this point. SeeGenesis 1:30.) Even the light beams from the stars could havebeen created at the instant God created the stars. It mightappear to scientists that light from the farthest stars tookmillions of years to get to earth, but if God created fullymature systems, then that light beam may only be as old as thestar itself.

When I am addressing the issue of creation with maturity(or the appearance of age) with a class of college students,


invariably a hand will go up at that point of the discussion.The student will say, “Then your God is a liar. He createdsomething that is not what it appears to be if He createdAdam, Eve, and dinosaurs full-grown. They looked old, butwere not old.” No, God is not a liar. He told us exactly whatHe did in Genesis l and 2. When someone tells you what heor she is doing, it is not a lie. Our problem is that we do notthink we can believe it as God describes it. Instead ofbelieving the Bible, we have accepted the speculative theoriesof evolution.

Remember that in Hebrews 1, Colossians 1 and John 1,God tells us that Jesus is the Creator. Is it outside of the abilityof God to create fully functional and mature systems? TheCreator stepped into space-time-history as the Savior. Heperformed His first miracle during the wedding feast at Canaas recorded in John 2.

JESUS CREATED AGED WINEDecades before Jesus and the Apostle John walked the

streets of Cana, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated intoGreek. This translation is called the LXX or the Septuagint.As John wrote the first two chapters of his gospel, heseemingly had in mind the first two chapters of the Septuagint(Old Testament in Greek). Not only is the use of the Greeklanguage similar, but John 1 and Genesis 1 talk about thebeginning of the world. John 2 and Genesis 2 deal with a manand a woman moving into marriage.

As recorded in John 2, the marriage party at Cana had runout of wine. There were six stone waterpots full of water,which Jesus turned into wine. The servants took some of thisnew wine to the headwaiter. After tasting it he said, “Everyman at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and whenmen have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thouhast kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10).


How is good wine produced? It must be aged. How oldwas this wine? Only a minute or two. The Creator steppedinto time and performed His first miracle and “manifestedforth his glory” (John 2:11). He wanted His disciples tomake no mistake as to who He is. In doing so, He createdsomething (wine) with the appearance of age. (The Greekword for wine is “oinos,” see: Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3,8; Titus 2:3; Revelation 17:2; 18:3,13.) The seconds-old wine(oinos) tasted like aged wine. How many waterpots does theBiblical account of John record? Six! How many days didGod work in the creation week? Six! As John writes hisGospel he could be thinking about Genesis 1 and 2. InGenesis, God spoke the universe into existence with fullmaturity in six days. In John 2, God created wine in a splitsecond with full maturity in six waterpots.

Scripture has one interpretation; however, it can havemany applications. One of the applications of John 2 is thatthe Creator does not need time. He can create whatever Hewants to create and make it appear to “have some years” onit. Creations that are new can appear to have gone through aprocess that required time—but there was no time. Jesusmanifested His glory as He performed His earthly miracles,without the use of time, just as He had created each aspect ofthe universe, instantly complete and fully functional withoutthe use of time.

Some evolutionists teach that the Big Bang created time.The Bible says that God created time, that He is outside oftime, but interacts with us in time. His miracles prove that Hedoes not need time to do anything!

FEEDING THE FIVE THOUSANDJesus was moved with compassion. He decided to provide

food to a large crowd. Did He say to His disciples, “Come on,guys, heat up the ovens. Today we are going to bake bread?”


The Lord Jesus fed 5,000 men (with women and childrenperhaps 15,000 total people), and He did it with five littleloaves and two little fish. “And they that did eat of theloaves were about five thousand men” (Mark 6:44). If youhad eaten that bread and did not know where it came from,might you have thought it had gone through a time process ofmixing ingredients and baking? But there was no time!

PETER AIMS TO KILLWhen Judas Iscariot came with a mob to betray Jesus,

Peter grabbed a sword and aimed it at the head of one of them.The person may have ducked, and Peter succeeded in cuttingoff only the ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest.(See: Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; John 18:10; Luke 22:50.)Dr. Luke, the physician, is the only Gospel writer thatmentions Jesus miraculously restoring the ear: “And one ofthem smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off hisright ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far.And he touched his ear, and healed him” (Luke 22:50,51).

Did Jesus pick up the ear, get out His suture kit, sew theear back on and say, “Come back in two weeks and we’ll takeout your stitches?” Of course not! He may have made a newear or He put the old ear back on the person—no stitches, noscabs, no healing process, no time involved. See! The God ofthe Bible does not need time. There is no way to reattach anear without the process of days of healing...unless you areGod, infinite and sovereign, the Creator of time, space andlife itself! Our Creator, the Lord Jesus, does not need time todo what we humans (limited and finite) would dogmaticallysay requires time!

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH BILLIONS OF YEARS?In order to find a means to extend the Bible into billions

of years, some Christians hold to the belief that there are big


gaps in the genealogical tables in the Bible. Let’s think aboutthis for a minute. Everyone agrees there are about 2,000 yearsback to Christ the Lord. The commonly held figure forAbraham is around 4,170 years ago. No gaps here. So thegaps must be between Adam and Abraham.

Jude verse 14, 15 states:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of thesesaying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of hissaints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all thatare ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds whichthey have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speecheswhich ungodly sinners have spoken against him [Emphasismine].

There are seven continuous generations from Adam toEnoch according to Jude 14. There is nothing missing here.That means any gaps in the genealogical tables would have tobe between Enoch and Abraham. Can we squeeze millions ofyears of evolutionary time between these two old patriarchs?The answer is a loud “NO!”

Noah’s father, Lamech, was Adam’s great, great, great,great, great, great grandson. They were one big, happy family.They all lived near each other and talked to each other. I canimagine Adam having his grandson Lamech sit in his lap asAdam said to him, “Lamech, your grandfather Adam shouldnot have eaten of that fruit back in the Garden of Eden!” ThenLamech, years later, told his grandson, Shem (Noah’s son),what Adam had told him.

Shem was with his father, Noah, on the ark and rode outthe Flood. Many years passed and Abraham was born. Shem’slifespan overlapped Abraham’s by 50 years or more. Shemassuredly taught Abraham all that Lamech had passed on tohim that had come straight from Adam! There are no hugegaps of time in the genealogical tables to compensate for thelong ages demanded by evolution (nor, I might add, are there


big gaps of time in the transmission of God’s Word). Andeven if there were gaps, they would not help make evolutionpossible, since people are already here. Evolution teachesthat people were some of the very last critters on theevolutionary tree to evolve. Once Adam came on the scene,all the animals were already here, so there is nothing left toevolve.

Someone may have taught you that there were big gaps inthe genealogical tables that gave room for evolution tohappen. As you can see, gaps of time, if they were there,would not help evolutionize the Bible. Once Adam and Evearrive on the scene, all other forms of life are already here.Remember, it was Adam who named all the kinds of birds andbeasts on the sixth day (Genesis 2:20).

GOD CREATED TIMEGod created time. He is not subject to it, since He is

eternal and time is a created entity. One day “time will be nomore.” That is the message of 2 Peter 3:8, “But, beloved, benot ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with theLord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as oneday.” How many times have people come up and said, “Youknow, the Bible teaches that those days in Genesis could belong periods of time. It says that a day is as a thousand years.”2 Peter 3:8, does not teach that each day of the creation weekwas 1,000 years or a longer period of time or vice versa(1,000 years as a day), but rather it shows that God is abovetime. The context of 2 Peter 3:8,9 is that time means nothingto God as He waits for us to come to repentance! I believe theGod of the Bible shows some of the yearning of his heart in 2Peter 3:8,9. As He waits for us to come to repentance, a dayis like 1,000 years. On the day that we come to repentance, ifHe had waited 1,000 years it is as a day! The Creator LordJesus is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9).


Almost all of the miracles of our Creator appear to haveneeded time! But our Lord did not need time for His miracles,and He did not need time to create the universe. For us tobelieve that God created the universe in a literal six-day, 24-hour/day week about 6,000 years ago (as recorded inGenesis), we must assume that He can and will create thingsin their mature state. His miracles tell us that this is consistentwith His power and His character. We can believe the Bible inthe normal historical and grammatical sense of its meaning.

Could it be that molecules-to-man evolution is not basedon true science, but upon many unprovable assumptions? Wewill consider this in Chapter Two, but one more thought first.The first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, says: “In thebeginning God created the heavens and the earth.” TheHebrew word for “God” (Elohim) is a plural word, and thesame word is sometimes translated “gods.” The verb, created,is third person singular, “He Created” in the Hebrew. Did Godmake a grammatical mistake (the same as us saying “theywas” which is not only incorrect English, it is very badHebrew!) in the very first verse of the Bible by putting aplural noun with a singular verb? Not at all! God is telling us,in His first written words to us, that He is a plurality and at thesame time a singularity. He is the one true God in threepersons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is theAlmighty Trinitarian God of the Bible, the three-in-one!

God’s universe speaks of His attributes. The singularuniverse is composed of three elements: space, time andmatter (which includes energy). “In the beginning”—time,“God created the heavens”—space, “and the earth”—matter.The one, singular universe is a plural, a tri-unity (tri-unity isused instead of Trinity since only the God of the Bible is theTrinity). Space is a tri-unity composed of width, depth andheight. Time is a tri-unity of past, present and future. Matteris a tri-unity of solid, liquid and gas! We are one person made


up of three parts, a body, a soul and a spirit. The atom iscomposed of three major parts: protons, neutrons andelectrons. This phenomenon of one entity that is divided intothree goes all the way through the creation and screams of thespecial Trinitarian God of the Bible.

In one short verse (Genesis 1:1), the God of the Bibledescribes the fundamental aspects of His universe andportrays Himself as plural and singular at the same time!Therefore, we Christians are not polytheists (Hinduism andNew Age), nor are we monotheists (Islam and Judaism).Christianity is unique among all other religious systems.Christians are Trinitarians. We are baptized “...in the name[singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost [The One Who is Three]” (Matthew 28:19b).

WE CAN BELIEVE THE BIBLE!As we will see in the chapters ahead, there is no scientific

reason not to believe the Holy Scriptures of the Bible as theyare written. Of course, I did not know these things back in1971, and many years later I am still learning. As I talked withthose Baylor students, I began to realize that evolutionarytheory and the Biblical creation account cannot be merged.The belief that God used evolutionary processes or evensuccessive creations over extended periods of time to changeprimitive molecules into you and me (Macroevolution,Theistic Evolution, Progressive Creation) is inadequate. Itportrays a vicious, stupid God who needed millions of yearsof ferocious animals eating animals or “survival of thefittest,” to produce something He considered perfect enoughto announce that man was finally in His own image.Evolution destroys God, His infinite power and His image.Furthermore, evolution enslaves God to the restrictiveboundaries of time and robs Him of His glory (Isaiah 48:11).



MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION

#1

The Bombardier Beetle

If there is any creature on earth that could not possiblyhave evolved, that creature is the Bombardier Beetle. Itneeded God to create it with all its systems fully functional.The study of this incredible insect has been going on for manyyears. In 1928, authors C. L. Metcalf and R. L. Flint wrote:“The bombardier beetle, Brachinus, ejects an acrid fluidwhich is discharged with a distinct popping sound and a smallcloud of vapor that looks like the smoke from a miniaturecannon.”5 More recently, Time magazine reports:

...the bombardier (beetle) does appear to be unique in the animalkingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a crossbetween tear gas and a tommy gun. When the beetle sensesdanger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one bodychamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmlesscompounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined toa second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of causticbenzoquinones, which explodes from its body at a boiling 212°F.What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles,which can be rotated, like a B-17’s gun turret, to hit a hungry antor frog with bull’s eye accuracy.6

You might wonder how an evolutionist might explain thismarvelous insect. Evolutionist Mark Isaak writes:

5 C. L. Metcalf and W. P. Flint, Destructive and Useful Insects, 4th ed. (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 24.

6 Natalie Angier reported by Rick Thompson/San Francisco, Time Magazine(February 25, 1985), p. 70.

39

Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like theywere designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, anddistribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates.Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetlewhich is incompatible with evolution.7

How does evolution, a mindless, undirected, purposeless,random chance process “create?” As Jewish scholar, Dr. LeeSpetner, writes:

Randomness is an essential feature of NDT [neo-Darwiniantheory]. There is no known physical or chemical mechanism togenerate heritable variations that will improve adaptivity orincrease the complexity of living organisms. The neo-Darwinians, therefore, had to choose randomness to produce thevariations they needed. In this way they hoped that, through thedirection afforded by natural selection, they could describe anevolutionary process that could account for a natural origin anddevelopment of life.

The neo-Darwinians have rejected nonrandomness as themajor feature of variation.8

Evolutionary theory has big problems when attempting toexplain the existence and complexity of the bombardier beetleby means of random, chance happenings. Each stage in theevolution of its special chemicals would have led to itsdestruction. This one-half inch insect mixes chemicals thatviolently react to produce something similar to an explosion.How could the bombardier beetle have evolved such acomplex means of defense without killing itself in theprocess? This problem has the members of the evolutionaryestablishment scratching their heads. Evolutionary theorysays that you lose it if you don’t use it. But, how do you useit unless you have it in completed and in fully functionalform?


7 “Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design,” by Mark [email protected]/faqs/bombardier.html.

8 Lee Spetner, Not By Chance! (Brooklyn: Judaica Press, 1998), p. 209.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

We have two options then. One is to believe that amindless, random, chance process brought into existenceexactly what would be essential for the creature to maintainlife and defend itself. The other option is that God, in hissovereign wisdom, designed and created precisely what wasneeded for the welfare of the creature and encoded theinformation in its genes. With godless evolution, a newenzyme or chemical or organ or fin or beak or bone will haveto randomly, mindlessly, unexplainably evolve until thecreature gains its new improvement. As creationists, wewould say that God created it just like it is, a discreet, fullyfunctional little bug with an incredibly complex defensemechanism.

The bombardier beetle is irreducibly complex. Rememberback in fourth grade when we reduced fractions down untilthey could be reduced no farther? This beetle cannot bereduced! If it doesn’t have all its parts, it can’t defend itself or,even worse, it could blow itself up. Naturally, it could notevolve after it blew itself up and was dead, so how did it gethere? The evolutionists might say, “Mother nature, beneficialmutations, natural selection and time did it.” Creationistswould say, “God did it.” (By the way, what or who is “MotherNature” who does all these miraculous things?)

To prevent its own destruction, the little bug manufacturesa chemical, called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with thereactive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be ableto use the expulsion of hot, burning liquid and gases todiscourage its enemies. A spider would eat it because thebeetle has no solution to exploit to protect itself. Again, wehave a dead beetle. Dead bugs cannot evolve the nextchemical needed to release the protective reaction. Thatchemical turns out to be an anti-inhibitor.9 When the anti-

The Bombardier Beetle 41

9 Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon: Institute forCreation Research, 1993), pp.101-104.

inhibitor is added to the other chemicals, an explosivereaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself.

There is still another problem, however. The beetle musthave an especially tough “combustion chamber.” Thatchamber must have an outlet for the violent reaction to releaseits energy or once again, we have a dead bug. Problem solved:this unique creature has the necessary equipment, includingtwin-tail tubes to “exhaust” its defensive reaction. Thesetubes can be aimed at enemies in a 180° arc from straight tothe rear, to directly toward the front. Amazingly, it does notshoot friendly creatures but only its enemies! How does aone-half inch long insect know how to aim at and shootpotential enemies?

When the little bug shoots its cannons (and it can shooteither side individually or both sides together) all we hearwith our human ears is a “pop.” But it is not just a single pop.It is a series of sequential pops that sequence so fast we onlyhear one “pop.” If it was just one big POP, it would be likelighting the after-burners on a jet engine and the diminutivecreature would blow itself out of the picture. But with asequential pop it can hang on with its little legs and remain inplace! Incredible!

How did its incredibly complex nervous system andadvanced chemical system evolve? There is nothing exactlylike bombardier beetles in the entire animal kingdom. Is thisan example of the “impersonal, plus time, plus chance” or isit an example of a special, intricate creation by a God who isintimately involved with His creatures? Which system ofbelief can best explain the marvelous bombardier beetle:Evolution or Creation?10


10 Duane Gish, Ph.D., Dinosaurs Those Terrible Lizards (San Diego: CreationLife Publishers), pp. 50-55. These pages describe the Bombardier Beetle. Thischildren’s book is primarily about dinosaurs. Also see Duane Gish, Ph.D., Dinosaursby Design (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1992), p. 83.

2...AND THEN CAME

ASSUMPTIONS

Many college science professors never tell theirstudents that the evolutionary model of one cell to

man is based on assumptions. What is an assumption? It issomething taken for granted and supposed to be true.11 As asix-day creationist, I believe God created the universe andeverything in it fully mature (some creationists describe thisas being created with the appearance of age). I cannot provethis with scientific experiments, so this belief is called anassumption. I suppose it to be true. Creationists assume Godexists and that the Bible is His Revelation to mankind. (Nowdo not take me wrong here—I am speaking from the atheisticevolutionists’ perspective. Make no mistake. God and hisWord are truly knowable.)

Evolutionists likewise have assumptions. They take manynecessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. Inother words, evolutionists assume that non-living chemicalsgave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, mindlessly andrandomly evolved into ever and ever more complex forms oflife. There are no scientific experiments to prove themolecules-to-man scenario. Molecules-to-man is notscientifically testable or experimentally verifiable orreproducible or able to be authenticated in any way. And this

11 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Mass., U.S.A: G.& C. Meriam Company, Publishers, 1981), p. 133.

43

is in spite of Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov claiming onnational television that evolution is no longer a theory but isthe most well proven fact in all of science.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the majorassumptions of evolution. These are the basic ideas anevolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be true. Allof the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon theseassumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a highschool or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentionedduring discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore thefirst six assumptions and only consider the seventh. Theassumptions are as follows:1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise toliving material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generationoccurred only once.3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants andanimals are all related.4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled lifeforms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla areinterrelated.6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to thevertebrates.7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fishgave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles tobirds and mammals.12

MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMEDWhat Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole

of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual(experimentally testable and reproducible) science thatsupports evolution. The process of moving from non-living


12 G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960),chapter 2, p. 6.

things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giantRedwood trees is all an assumption.

Dr. Kerkut clearly states the evolutionary assumption thatall life is related to that first cell. However, through the use ofphase-electron microscopes, scientists have discovered thatthere are consistent differences in cellular substance invarious kinds of animals. When studied microscopically, theliving things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to berelated to each other at all. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, the Biblereads: “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kindof flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes,and another of birds.” This was written 1,900 years beforescientists “discovered” the differences in the basic cellularcomponents of the various kinds of living creatures. Godcreated life and He sustains life! “In him was life; and thelife was the light of men. And the light shineth indarkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John1:4,5).

The Lord Jesus inspired His apostles and prophets torecord details of His creation, which scientists are justbeginning to discover. God says there are different types offlesh in the bodies of His earthly creatures. But there are alsodifferent types of heavenly bodies—the stars are differentfrom each other and not the same as the sun or the moon (1Cor. 15:41). [The Bible always differentiates between the sun,moon and stars. Much of what is known about stars has beenlearned by astronomers as they study our sun, which theyassume is a star. But the Word of God, the Bible, never callsour sun, a “star.” Therefore, much of what we think we knowabout stars may be completely wrong!]

Astronomers estimate there may be one trillion trillionstars. The best English dictionaries have less than one and ahalf million words. Yet, the God of the Bible has a name anda number for each star, “He calleth them all by names”

...And Then Came Assumptions 45

(Isaiah 40:26)! That is more than one trillion trillion names.God is infinite in His power and wisdom. If we used everyword in the English language we could name less than .001%of the vast number of stars!

From the biggest star to the smallest atom, the magnitudeand complexity of the universe is unexplainable, except interms of a Creative Designer who is infinitely above any“chance processes” or human technology. The Creator-Goddesigned His creation in such a way that as mankind studiesit, he must either give God thanks and honor Him, or bereduced to foolish speculations and “vain imaginations”(Romans 1). This writer believes that macroevolution is afoolish speculation. It is in truth Speculative Philosophy, notverifiable science.

LIFE FROM DEAD CHEMICALS?Many scientists assume life came from non-living

chemicals13 and that this only happened once. They say thateverything we see alive, whether plant or animal, came fromthat first, primordial, single cell. Most evolutionists do notbelieve that one kind of life began in the Amazon and anotherin Africa and another in Arizona. They believe non-livingchemicals gave birth to life in one cell at one particular place,and that cell learned how to reproduce itself before it died.That first cell became the ancestor of the entire plant andanimal kingdoms.

The most well proven law of the biological sciences iscalled the Law of Biogenesis. This law states that life comesfrom life! Anything that is alive came from something else


13 The Mystery of Life’s Origin presents the scientific position that chemicalevolution is impossible. This book by Doctors of Chemistry has not been answered bythe evolutionists. Non-living chemicals will not ultimately generate reproducing life.The chemistry does not work that way [Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen,The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (N.Y.: PhilosophicalLibrary, Inc., 1984)].

that is alive. It states that life does not come from deadchemicals.

Why do evolutionary scientists assume the reality of thisstartling event of life from lifeless chemicals? “Because weare here and alive and so it had to have happened at least oncesince there is no Creator-God.” The chances of life evolvingfrom non-life are so astronomically high as to be impossiblewithout a supernatural Lifegiver.

LIFE BY CHANCE?Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for

Creation Research have recorded the probability of thechance origin of life in their revised book, What is CreationScience? (pp. 269-276). If the entire universe were crammedwith electrons (electron particles), the maximum number ofthese little particles would be ten to the power of 130. If eachparticle could do one hundred billion-billion events (steps inever onward and upward evolution) every second for 3,000billion years (100 times older than anyone says the universeis), then in the span of history of the universe, ten to the 170thpower events could possibly happen. But to get a series ofeven 1,500 events to happen in order (and without God’shelp), events that might be moving from non-living chemicalsto a living cell, there is only one chance in ten to the power of450! This means that the probability of godless evolutioneven getting started is zero. [There is a law of probability thatstates that anything beyond ten to the fiftieth power (reallyminus fiftieth power—but that comes out in fractions andmost people do not like to work with fractions) isimpossible!] There aren’t enough electrons in the universe togenerate by chance a single living cell of a singleevolutionary scientist. And yet, these scientists who refuse tobelieve in God are here. How did they get here? Withoutbelief in God, the only option these people have is the


purposeless, mindless evolution of non-living chemicals overaeons of time into a living cell and ultimately into man.

For nearly 150 years, some of the most brilliant scientistsin the world have attempted to convert non-living chemicalsinto some form of reproducible life. No one has done it.

A CELL IS NOT SIMPLEA single reproducible cell is far from simple. Dr. Leon

Long, of the Department of Geological Sciences at theUniversity of Texas at Austin, writes as an evolutionist:

Among the first organisms were the lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. They are about as simple as a self-sufficient cell canbe, which is none too simple, considering that a bacterium cansynthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1million reactions per second! Cells of bacteria and blue-greenalgae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, andinternal membranes.14

Is it any wonder scientists claim that life from non-livingchemicals only happened once? According to Dr. Long, thesimplest forms of life can perform one million reactions persecond! Something that complex obviously had a designerand, therefore, needed the Creator Lord Jesus.

Scientists do not talk very much about the evolution of thecell membrane. The membrane that provides the outside wall(or skin) of the cell is highly complex. This membranepermits specific concentrations of certain chemicals andsolutions into and out of the cell. If the concentrations ofsome of these chemicals vary by even 1/100%, an extremelytiny amount, the cell will die. At a microscopic spot in theuniverse, how did those chemicals all get together in thecorrect configurations and concentrations and at the same


14 Leon E. Long, Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), p.172.

instant? In addition, how did the cell membrane form aroundthem at just the right moment permitting only specificconcentrations of chemicals in and out of the cell (“knowing,”of course, what those chemicals must and must not be)? Andhow could all of this somehow know how to reproduce itselfand not die in the process?

The God of the Bible said He created, created, created!His creation defies the speculations of the evolutionist.Creation necessitates a designer. It demands fully functionallife from the beginning. Biology acknowledges this with itsmost well-proven law, the law of Biogenesis: Life generateslife. If something is alive, it is alive because something elsealive produced it. The Bible tells us the living God is theCreator of life, and that statement agrees with what we see inbiology. Life always comes from life. In speaking of Jesus,the Bible says, “In him was life and the life was the light ofmen” (John 1:4).

And yet, evolutionary chemists construct laboratoryexperiments that attempt to display the means by which lifebegan without God. Many of these experimenters believe thatthe atmosphere of primitive Earth was quite different than itis today. The atmosphere of the planet Jupiter is thought toresemble that of early Earth. Water vapor, hydrogen,ammonia and methane were the supposed ingredients. In awell-known experiment (in 1953), Dr. Stanley Miller, placedthe above four ingredients into a glass jar which he heated andinto which he sent sparks of electricity. He noticed a pinkfluid coming off into his trap. This fluid contained someamino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.Proteins are very much a part of living tissue, but they arenot life.

Too much credit is given for the Miller experiment. It didnot produce the correct mixture of amino acids necessary forlife. Miller actually produced a poisonous mixture of amino


acids—AND he cheated—he used intelligent design, notrandom, mindless, accidental, non-purposeful processes,further demonstrating the need for intelligence in thegeneration of life-building chemicals!

The Miller-type experiments do not display chemicalsmarching ever onward and upward until reproducing life isgenerated; yet evolution in this manner is assumed to havehappened. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence in therocks of Earth or the present oceans that water vapor,hydrogen, ammonia and methane ever existed in theconcentrations necessary for Miller’s experiments toaccurately occur in nature.

The claim that chemical evolution is impossible, aspresented in The Mystery of Life’s Origin13 by Dr. CharlesThaxton, has yet to be refuted. Random chemical reactions donot produce life! Dr. Stanley Miller and his followers did notproduce anything with raw chemicals that even approacheslife. Dennis Petersen in his informative book, Unlocking theMysteries of Creation,15 page 67, quotes Dr. Henry Morriswho says it this way:

Unknown chemicals in the primordial past…through…Unknown processes which no longer exist…produced…Unknown life forms which are not to be found but could through…Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life…in an…Unknown atmospheric composition…in an…Unknown oceanic soup complex…at an…Unknown time and place.

Prove any of these unknowns of evolution withexperimentally testable, reproducible science and the NobelScience prize will be yours!


15 Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Vol. 1 (El Cajon:Master Books, 1988), p. 63, as quoted from the Bible Science Newsletter, May 1974,p. 8.

A PERSONAL GOD CREATES LIFEThe atheistic evolutionist says there was no God, no

higher power, no designer, and no person behind thebeginning of life. It was the impersonal (no person, thereforemindless), plus time, plus random chance (or, no one plusnothing equals everything). So, even if the Stanley Millerexperiments did prove chemical evolution is possible, whichthey did not do, you still have a personal designer (Miller)making his creation. Does a personal designer-scientist, doingexperiments in a carefully controlled laboratory, prove thatthe creation of life occurred without any creator designer (noGod) in a totally random-chance primordial ooze? NO! OurGod is worthy to receive honor and glory and praise becauseHe created all things (Rev. 4:11). We can trust God and HisWord, the Bible. Nothing is too difficult for Him (Jeremiah32:17,27). He is the God of the impossible (Luke 1:37).

HAS ANYONE SEEN AN ELECTRON?One of the greatest scientists of the space age, Dr. Werner

von Braun stated:

One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universewithout concluding that there must be design and purpose behindit all.... The better we understand the intricacies of the universeand all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at theinherent design upon which it is based....

To be forced to believe only one conclusion—thateverything in the universe happened by chance—would violatethe very objectivity of science itself.... What random processcould produce the brains of man or the system of the human eye?They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence ofGod. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? ...They saythey cannot visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualizean electron? ...What strange rationale makes some physicistsaccept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to acceptthe reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceiveHim?15


Ask any scientist if he believes in electrons. He willanswer, “Certainly.” Ask that same scientist if he or she hasever seen an electron, and they will say, “No.” Scientistsbelieve in electrons by faith as they observe the results ofelectron activity.

Is this not similar to faith in God? We do not see God, butwe do “see” Him through His handiwork, the creation.Romans 1 explains that as we study the intricacies of themacro and micro universes, we should think about whodesigned them, who makes them work, and who holds themtogether.

FOOLISH SPECULATIONSWhen scientists examine the largest stars and the smallest

atoms and do not honor God as their Creator and give thanksto Him, they are reduced to foolish speculations and vainimaginations (Romans 1:18-23). Could the evolution of manfrom a single cell be a foolish speculation? Dr. HarrisonMatthews, evolutionist and the writer of the introduction tothe 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means ofNatural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races inthe Struggle for Life, states:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology isthus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on anunproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in thetheory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in specialcreation—both are concepts which believers know to be true, butneither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.16


16 L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, “Introduction,” Charles Darwin, Origin ofSpecies by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in theStruggle for Life (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971), p. xi, as quoted in The RevisedQuote Book, ed. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box2667, El Cajon, Calif. 92021), p. 2. For many more quotes that negate evolution fromthe literature of the evolutionary scientists, purchase The Quote Book. The cost isaround $4.00 and well worth it.

Let’s examine what Dr. Matthews is doing. He goes fromfact to unproved theory to faith to belief, and all in oneparagraph! But notice he is an honest evolutionist when henotes that evolution has no scientific proof. It is a speculationof faith. Yet, Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of HarvardUniversity, writes:

Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended fromthe apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.It is the fact of evolution (Emphasis in original).17

In his writing in Omni Magazine (which promotesevolution), Dr. Mayr presents godless evolution as fact, eventhough the Creator says in Romans 1 that all men know better:“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold(suppress) the truth in unrighteousness; Because thatwhich may be known of God is manifest in them; for Godhath shewed it unto them” (Romans 1:18-19). Romans 1:22adds: “Professing themselves to be wise, they becamefools.”

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commissionagrees:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of lifeare great con men, and the story they are telling may be thegreatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have oneiota of fact.18

Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Ernst Mayr and others havepresented evolution as no longer a theory, but a proven fact.They have done this without a single iota of fact. Evolutionist,D.M.S. Watson said it best:


17 Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February 1983, p. 74.18 Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, “The Fresno Bee,” August 20, 1959, as quoted in The

Revised Quote Book, p. 5.

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it hasbeen observed to occur or is supported by logically coherentarguments, but because...no alternative explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist,the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by whichit has been brought about are still disputable.

...the theory of evolution itself is a theory universallyaccepted not because it can be proved by logical coherentevidence to be true but because the only alternative is specialcreation, which is clearly incredible.19

Dr. Watson clearly identifies the real problem in theevolution/creation controversy—it is God! Watson explainsthat there is no “logically coherent” science to supportevolution, but that the only alternative is special creation,which he labels as “clearly incredible.” In other words, hewould rather believe in an idea that has no credible science toback it up than to believe in Creator Lord Jesus.

At this point, someone might object and say that Dr.Watson is speaking in 1929 and that evolutionary science hasfound many evidences since then to support it. Well, let’scome up closer to the present and see if times have changedvery much by 1997. Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, aconfirmed evolutionist, writes:

...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. Itis not that the methods and institutions of science somehowcompel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenalworld, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes to create a set of concepts thatproduce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive,no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, thatmaterialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot inthe door.20


19 D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119, pp.231, 233.

20 Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Reviewof Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31

Obviously the issue is still Creator Lord Jesus Christ! Dr.Lewontin admits that to believe in evolution is counter-intuitive and mystifying. So why does he remain anevolutionist in spite of his own scientific evidence against it?He refuses to believe in God, his Creator!

According to World magazine, February 26, 2000, page32, another evolutionist agrees with Lewontin:

Kansas State University immunologist Scott C. Todd struckprecisely the same note, [as Lewontin, Ed.] writing shortly afterthe [Kansas] Board of Education made its decision. In a letterpublished in the September issue of Nature, he declared that“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such anhypothesis is excluded from science because it is notnaturalistic.”

Though Mr. Lewontin calls his dogma materialism whileMr. Todd calls it naturalism, they are speaking of the same thing:the atheistic faith that nature means matter, and nature is all thereis.

The real issue in the evolution/creation controversy is stillGod!!! The clearly incredible Creator says in Psalm 19:1:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmamentsheweth His handiwork.




#2

The Incubator Bird

The Megapode or “incubator bird” of Australia is uniqueamong birds. This three to four pound bird resembles achicken or a small turkey. Some native Australians call it thebrush turkey.

The incubator birds are unlike all other birds. So, if theyevolved, from what did they evolve? Or what are theyevolving into? An article in Scientific American21 offersprecious little by way of an evolutionary explanation for theorigins of this strange bird.

All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except theincubator bird.

Instead, they pile up great heaps of debris which serve asincubators; the warmth of the fermenting compost does the work.In one species, the scrub fowl, a mound 20 feet high and 50 feetwide has been reported.22

Instead of using its own body heat to incubate its eggs (asdoes the chicken who sits on her eggs), the incubator bird usesfermentation heat and “some use solar heat and others theheat produced by volcanic action.”23

21 Roger S. Seymour, “The Brush Turkey,” Scientific American, Vol. 265, No. 6,December 1991, pp. 108-114.

22 Roger Tory Petersen, Life Nature Library: The Birds (New York: Time-LifeBooks, 1973), p. 140.

23 The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago,1990 edition), p. 1011.

57

A bird that uses volcanic heat or the warmth of fermentingplant life to hatch its eggs: Incredible! If there are anycreatures that could not possibly evolve, the Australianincubator bird joins the bombardier beetle as such a creature.

The female is responsible for two activities. First, shemust test the nest to be sure it is adequate for incubating hereggs. What explanation can evolution offer for the ability ofthe hen to evaluate the suitability of a nest that may be dugthree feet into the ground and extend 15 feet or more aboveground and up to 50 feet across? And what would motivate alittle three and one-half pound male bird to get busyconstructing monstrous nest number two, should the henreject his first effort?

After accepting the nest, the second responsibility of thefemale is performed. She lays 20 to 35 eggs at the rate of oneegg every three days for up to seven months. “As many as 16eggs can exist in a normal mound at any one time.”24 Eachegg weighs about a half a pound and is as large as an ostrichegg. That is a tremendous amount of work for a three to fourpound hen. No wonder that upon completion of her layingtask, she leaves the nest, never to return. She takes no part inthe incubation and raising of her chicks. This is not yournormal evolutionary way!

At this point, the male begins to perform his God-givenjob of managing the incubation of the deeply buried eggs. Forthis species of incubator bird chicks to survive, they demanda precise temperature of 91°F. Yes, exactly 91ºF. If the malebird wants the chicks to survive, he will not let thetemperature vary more than one or two degrees on either sideof 91ºF! How does the daddy bird maintain a consistenttemperature of 91ºF in a mound of decaying plants and dirt?

Scientists differ on the mechanism they think the bird usesto measure the temperature. Some think the bird’s


24 Seymour, p. 109.

thermometer is in its beak. Others believe the tongue candistinguish 91ºF and a few tenths of a percent above andbelow 91ºF.

Here is the point: How could a bird evolve the ability toprecisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue?Evolution has no credible answer. How would the incubatorbird know it needed to keep its eggs at 91ºF? The chickswould get too hot or too cold and die before he figured it out.And dead creatures do not evolve into higher forms.

You may be asking, “Well, how does this bird keep thoseeggs at 91ºF?” The male digs down into the nest and checksthe temperature. On hot days, he may pile extra sand on topof the nest to shield it from the sun. He may even rearrangethe entire pile of rotting leaves and grasses several times aday.

On cooler days, the male megapodes (which means bigfeet) will push material off the top of the nest to permit moresunlight to penetrate the decaying organic material. Or, tokeep the humidity at 99.5% around the eggs, he may digconical holes toward the eggs to get more moisture deeperinto the nest. Keeping temperature and humidity just right isa big job. Concerning the precision needed for incubationtemperature maintenance, Seymour writes:

This process is very precise: one centimeter of fresh materialadded to the mound can increase core temperature about 1½ºC.25

Not only must the eggs be kept at 91ºF and 99.5%humidity, but the chick must get enough air to breathe. Thefather provides the fresh air for the chicks as he daily digsdown to the eggs. But the chick must get the air inside theshell. The means to get air inside the shell was provided bythe hen as she formed the shell. It has thousands of tiny holes(called pores) in it. These holes in the thick shell (in at least

The Incubator Bird 59

25 Seymour, p. 110.

one species) are shaped like conical ice cream cones with thenarrowest part of the cone toward the chick. As the chickgrows, it cannot get enough air through the bottom of the coneso it begins to remove the inside layer of the shell. As it thinsout the shell, the holes get bigger (moving up the cone) andthe chick can get more air. Amazing!

The way the chicks hatch is also unique among birds.Unlike other birds, they are ready to fly with full feathers assoon as they break out of the egg. Only once they hatch, ittakes up to three days for them to dig their way up out of themound. How do they know they must dig their way out or elsethey die? How do they know which way to dig? They havenot been instructed by either parent. Even so, they lie on theirbacks and dig up until they break out. Clearly, the God of theBible is involved with all aspects of His creation! It isillogical to think of these incredible birds as a product ofmindless, random, accidental, purposeless chance happeningsof some mysterious evolutionary process over massiveamounts of time.

Once the chicks dig out of the nest, they are on their own.They are not fed or cared for by either parent. When they aremature, the male will build a huge nest as an incubator for hismate’s eggs. He will build this huge, precise mound withoutany instruction from his parents. This is not learned behavior!How does the brush turkey know the importance of 91ºF?

Credentialed men and women have the audacity to saythat this bird is the product of mindless, purposeless, randomchance processes over long periods of time. But truly, howcould the incubator bird even exist? Only if the God of theBible lives and is involved with life-giving to His creatures.


3HAS GOD BEEN TOPPLED?

One day my two creationist dental students asked meto give them a scientific explanation for how

evolution occurs. In other words, they wanted me to defendmy evolutionary beliefs by telling them the scientificevidence I could present as proof of how one creature evolvesinto another and whether that evidence conflicts with theBible. Darwin seemed like the logical place to start searchingfor my answer. I believed the evidence was there somewhere,but I’d never been asked to prove it before. Did I ever get ashock! Darwin had no idea how one species of animal couldevolve into another. He wrote to a friend in 1863:

When we descend to details we can prove that no one species haschanged (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed):nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, whichis the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why somespecies have changed and others have not. The latter case seemsto me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detailthan the former case of supposed change.26

THE REALLY BIG QUESTIONObviously, in 1863, four years after publishing Origin of

Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation ofFavoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin had no ideahow one species might change into another. The only thing he

26 Frances Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (N.Y.: Appleton& Co., 1898), Vol. 11, p. 210 (Darwin’s letter to G. Benham, May 22, 1863).

61

thought he could prove was that “...no one species haschanged.” He could not even imagine what a “beneficial”change might look like. Scientists today remain as baffled asDarwin.

The world’s leading evolutionary thinkers had aconvention in Rome in 1981. They wanted to decide whatmakes one species evolve into another species, and how thatchange, from one animal or plant into another, might occur.Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard, writes:

We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on themechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of theleading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists,cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreedwas that we still have absolutely no idea what happensgenetically during speciation. That’s a damning statement, butit’s the truth.27

These scientists in Rome in 1981 arrived at theirconclusion, “We have no idea how evolution of one speciesinto another occurs!” Neither did Darwin in 1863! This, then,is the really big question of evolution: How does it happen?God says He created each thing “after its kind” (Genesis 1:11,12, 21, 24, 25). Evolutionists say they do not know how“kinds” come into being. Which account do you believe:God’s or the evolutionist’s? My position is that God alone isworthy to be praised!

Scientists do not know how one kind of life-form mightchange into another. They do not even know how a simplechemical compound might come about. Author and friend ofevolution, Jeff Goldberg, records for us the thoughts of HansKosterlitz, one of the discoverers of the human body’s naturalpain killers, the enkephalins:


27 Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February 1983, p. 78.

It is a question almost of God. Working on the enkephalins youget—without being religious—a commitment. You start toadmire and wonder. How could that come about—that plants andanimals share such structurally similar chemicals? How, evenafter a million years of evolution, could the earth, with all itsplants and creatures, be so very simple and unified?28

Kosterlitz looked at the enkephalins, and his study of themicro-universe made him think about God. But he quicklyadds the disclaimer “without being religious,” as if thinkingabout God is not religious when studying only a small part ofHis creation. Apparently Kosterlitz believes God has nothingto do with science. Yet, when scientists study specific aspectsof the creation, God’s intention is for them to realize that theremust be a Designer-God behind it all. However, most addtheir disclaimers and refuse to honor Creator Lord Jesus asGod. God’s Word (i.e. Romans 1:18-22) declares that theirthinking is thereby reduced to vain imaginations and foolishspeculations (evolution over millions of years, etc.).

Kosterlitz questioned how plants and animals could“...share such structurally similar chemicals.” If we examinethis sharing of chemicals from a creationist perspective, thenGod created life to fit in the common atmosphere of earthwith a common food chain composed of certain basicchemicals. Similarities in creatures do not prove evolution,but more logically display the wisdom of God in creatingplants and animals, which, in all their diversity, can exist in acommon environment. [More about the Anthropic Principlelater.] God designed all life to exist while using a fewcommon basic chemicals in an atmosphere made mostly ofoxygen and nitrogen. What genius the God of the Bibledisplays!

Has God Been Toppled? 63

28 Jeff Goldberg, Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery (N.Y.: Bantam Books, 1988),p. 211.

HAS GOD BEEN TOPPLED?Jerry Adler, a science writer, reviews world class

evolutionary thinker Stephen Jay Gould’s book, WonderfulLife, with these words:

Science, having toppled God the Creator and exalted Man,now wants to raise E. coli and the rest of the seething mass ofterrestrial life up there alongside him. This view does not denythe uniqueness of Homo sapiens and its distinctive contributionto life, human consciousness. It asserts, however, that there isnothing inherent in the laws of nature that directed evolutiontoward the production of human beings. There is nothingpredestined about our current pre-eminence among largeterrestrial fauna; we are the product of a whole series ofcontingent events in the history of our planet, any one of whichcould have been reversed to give rise to a different outcome.

We are, in short, like every other creature that ever walkedor slithered across the earth, an accident....

The survivors...were lucky.The story of life is one of periodic mass extinctions, which

wiped out the majority of species on earth.29

Gould, an atheist, and Adler evidently believe that Godhas been “toppled,” that science and man are exalted, and allof this is based on the “lucky survivors” of mass extinctions.So, evolution appears to be based upon death. Because of thedeath of the “unfit,” the “fittest” survive. How might ascientist describe “unfit” life? Do evolutionists believe thereis “unfit” life among us today? Did Hitler believe that? Hitlerwas an evolutionist and apparently thought he was speedingup the process of survival of the fittest. Evolution is notamoral. It is not neutral thinking. It promotes a value systemthat permits each individual to do what is right in his owneyes.

Evolutionary thought encourages school curricularmaterials that force young minds to choose who is fit to


29 Jerry Adler, Newsweek, November 20, 1989, p. 68.

survive, and who is unfit; who will be rescued in the lifeboat,and who will be left to die of exposure or drowning. No onebut God is qualified to describe a certain life as fit or “unfit.”Evolutionary thinking wrongly promotes man to the status ofGod. “And ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5b) was part ofthe four-fold deception offered to Eve by the satanicallycontrolled serpent in the Garden of Eden! Atheistic evolutionis the foundation of the deceptive worldviews so prevalent inour day. It forces people to make decisions (for instance aboutlife and death, abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide) thatshould remain with God alone. The God of the Bible says heknows how many days are ordained for each of us (Psalm139:16), He knew all about us before he created us in ourmother’s womb (Jeremiah 2:5, Job 33:4, Isaiah 44:2) and Heis the one who ordains our life (Numbers 24:23). Our timesare in His hands (Psalm 31:14,15).

WE SEE DEATH AND EXTINCTION,NOT EVOLUTION

Scientists are correct when they observe and publish thefact that mass extinctions have occurred in the past. In thepresent, extinctions are occurring on a daily basis. Whatscience can prove with facts is that life is disappearing. Lifeof a wide variety of kinds of plants and animals is becomingextinct. Does this prove that new life forms are now evolvingor ever did evolve? Science has conclusively proven that lifeis dying and the universe is running down (entropy in action).The fossils are a record of death and extinction. The“Cambrian Explosion” 30 is not an explosion of early life. It


30 Geologists tell us that Cambrian rocks are the oldest rocks that containnumerous life-forms as fossils. Many of these rocks display extremely complexcreatures that supposedly existed 600,000,000 years ago. Because there are so manytypes and numbers of fossil creatures, they are referred to as the “Cambrian Explosionof Life.” The Genesis flood is a scientifically feasible explanation for this massive andrapid destruction of living creatures. This universal flood occurred about 4,500 yearsago, not 600,000,000!

is a fossil record of the death of millions of complexorganisms that, for the most part, no longer exist. TheCambrian Explosion of Life would better be called theCambrian Explosion of Death! So, therefore, when we look atnature, we do not see emerging new life forms but ratherdeath and extinction—entropy in action!

Carl Sagan used to teach that our sun overcame entropy,thus providing the energy necessary for evolution to happen.Evolution needs more than energy to progress. Raw energywill evolve absolutely nothing without a plan (design) and afactory to direct the energy. So then, if mindless, purposeless,random accidents were to evolve into a life form by using thesun’s energy at least three things would be required: Energy,design and an ordering mechanism (factory). In evolutionarydogma, which is absolutely a mindless, totally random chanceprocess, where does a design come from? And who builds thefactory to convert the sun’s energy into life forms? Sunlightalone cannot cause dead chemicals to evolve into life!

JESUS CHRIST IS THE SOURCE OF LIFE!The Creator-God of the Bible is the source of life. Jesus

said,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, andshall not come into condemnation; but is passed from deathunto life.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming andnow is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:and they that hear shall live.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given tothe Son to have life in himself;

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which allthat are in the graves shall hear his voice,


And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto theresurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto theresurrection of damnation (John 5:24-29).

God created life. He created it beautifully designed andsinless. Death came when the first man, Adam, and his wife,Eve, rebelled against their Creator and sinned. Romans 5:12states:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, anddeath by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that allhave sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:21 continues this teaching:

For since by man came death, by man came also theresurrection of the dead.

If death came as a result of the sin of Adam, then sin,decay and death were non-existent until the Fall. What is thefossil record? It is a testimony of death. Could we havemillions of years of death and fossil “man” leading up toAdam when the Scriptures plainly teach “for by man(referring to Adam) came death?” Fossils are a record ofdeath. Without death, there can be no fossils. Do we believethe Bible or do we believe the speculations of scientists?Scientists believe death began millions of years before manevolved onto the scene. The Bible records that death beganwith Adam.

THE BIBLE AND EVOLUTION IN CONFLICTAs God’s creatures, we do not subject the Bible to

science; we subject “science” to the Bible. The challengewhether to believe God and His Word or to believe theoreticalevolutionary science is presented by Scott Huse, a Christianthinker, in his excellent book, The Collapse of Evolution. The


conflict of evolutionary theory against the Holy Scripture isimpossible to reconcile. Huse lists 24 contrasts between theBible and evolutionary thinking:

1. Bible: God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1).Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for theexistence of all things.

2. Bible: World created in six literal days (Gen. 1).Evolution: World evolved over aeons.

3. Bible: Creation is completed (Gen. 2:3).Evolution: Creative processes continuing.

4. Bible: Ocean before land (Gen. 1:2).Evolution: Land before oceans.

5. Bible: Atmosphere between two hydrospheres (Gen. 1:7).Evolution: Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere.

6. Bible: First life on land (Gen. 1:11).Evolution: Life began in the oceans.

7. Bible: First life was land plants (Gen. 1:11).Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.

8. Bible: Earth before sun and stars (Gen. 1:14-19).Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.

9. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes (Gen. 1:11).Evolution: Fishes before fruit trees.

10. Bible: All stars made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16).Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.

11. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20, 21).Evolution: Fishes evolved hundreds of millions of years beforebirds appeared.

12. Bible: Birds before insects (Gen. 1:20, 21).Evolution: Insects before birds.

13. Bible: Whales before reptiles (Gen. 1:20-31).Evolution: Reptiles before whales.

14. Bible: Birds before reptiles (Gen. 1:20-31).Evolution: Reptiles before birds.


15. Bible: Man before rain (Gen. 2:5).Evolution: Rain before man.

16. Bible: Man before woman (Gen. 2:21-22).Evolution: Woman before man (by genetics).

17. Bible: Light before the sun (Gen. 1:3-19).Evolution: Sun before any light.

18. Bible: Plants before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19).Evolution: Sun before any plants.

19. Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life all at once (Gen.1:20, 21).Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitiveorganic blob.

20. Bible: Man’s body from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7)Evolution: Man evolved from monkeys.

21. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Gen. 1:28).Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man existed.

22. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29).Evolution: Man originally a meat eater.

23. Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; 1Cor. 15:38- 39).Evolution: Life forms in a continual state of flux.

24. Bible: Man’s sin the cause of death (Rom. 5:12).Evolution: Struggle and death existent long before theevolution of man.

In addition to these specific direct contradictions, there arestark differences of general principle between atheistic evolutionand biblical Christianity. Jesus said:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can acorrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7:18 KJV).

The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christiansystems of belief and practice. It has served as an intellectualbasis for Hitler’s nazism and Marx’s communism. It hasprompted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism and libertinism,as well as establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has


spread through our society like a cancer. The mind and generalwelfare of mankind has suffered greatly as a result of thisnaturalistic philosophy.

According to the Bible, man is a responsible creature. Oneday he will give an account for his life’s actions and motives. Butwhen man is viewed as the product of some vague purposelessevolutionary process, he is conveniently freed from all moralobligations and responsibility. After all, he is merely an accidentof nature, an intelligent animal at best.31

Evolution or creation: you cannot have both! Scott Huse’slist is brutally clear. Look again at #14, for example. TheBible says in Genesis 1:20-31 that birds came on the fifth dayand reptiles on the sixth day. That means birds came beforereptiles. Yet evolution teaches as fact that reptiles came beforebirds. The two views are mutually exclusive. You eitherbelieve the Bible or you believe the speculations of men.

Evolution claims that the earth began as a dry planet. Overmany years, volcanic activity and comets crashing into earthgenerated our oceans. This is not what the Bible says. Godsays earth began completely covered with water. “And theearth was without form, and void; and darkness was uponthe face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved uponthe face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). Evolution claims earthstarted dry. God says it started wet. If you are a theisticevolutionist or a progressive creationist and still hold to BigBang cosmology, you have a big problem here: Big Bang saysdry, God says wet!

Someone might complain about Huse’s twenty-fouritems. For example, #13 might better read, “Whalescontemporary with reptiles.” Even so, evolution has whalescoming on the scene long after the age of the dinosaurs. Mostrecently some evolutionists are proposing that whales evolved


31 Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1983), pp. 122-124.

from cows or hippos or wolf-like creatures that “returned totheir evolutionary roots in the sea.”

WHALES EVOLVED FROM LAND MAMMALS?The evolution of whales from land mammals (of course

from our perspective it never happened) is quite a problem forthe evolutionist to solve. As evolutionist Georges Fichterlaments, it is “a bit of a mystery.”

Cetaceans [whales] developed from mammals that lived on land,their return to the sea commencing perhaps 60 million years ago.Fossil evidence is scarce, and so the precise and complete pictureof cetacean evolution remains a bit of a mystery.32

Douglas Chadwick cuts about ten million years offFichter’s numbers by talking about “...a sperm whale, one of83 cetacean species whose past is firmly rooted on land.About 50 million years ago its ancestors first learned toswim.”33

It appears that cows and hippos and wolves are still cowsand hippos and wolves. And they know how to swim in freshor salt water from the moment of birth.

One of the supposed transitional forms is calledAmbulocetus. Part of a skeleton remains. This creature ispublished to have been about seven feet long (not enoughvertebrae to tell for sure SINCE MOST OF THEVERTEBRAE HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND!). It is oftenpictured with four legs and a furry coat. The fur would seemto eliminate the hippo as its ancestor although fur is just anartist’s idea since bones do not have fur! Since the pelvicgirdle is missing there is no way to determine if the creature


32 Georges Fichter, Whales and other Marine Animals (New York: GoldenPress), 1990, p.8.

33 Douglas H. Chadwick, “Evolution of Whales,” National Geographic,November 2001, p. 64.

walked or swam. [For more about Ambulocetus, see:www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp]

Related to Ambulocetus is supposed to be Basilosaurus.But Basilosaurus is serpentine and about 70 feet long andfully aquatic. Next is Pakicetus. “...Pakicetus is known onlyfrom some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lowerjaw, so we have no way of knowing if its locomotion wastransitional.”34 Evolutionists have in no way proven thatwhales evolved from land mammals such as cows or hipposor wolves!

ATMOSPHERE BETWEEN TWO HYDROSPHERES?Huse mentions an atmosphere between two hydrospheres.

The water canopy beneath the ozone layer and above wherethe birds fly will be discussed later (and the canopy is out offavor, even in some creationist circles). But if there was nowater above our atmosphere then there would have been rainand floods from Adam to Noah and the rainbow loses itscovenantal significance!

Will you bow to evolutionary “science,” or will you bowto your Creator? There are certain things in life that are blackand white. We should have the integrity, especially asprofessing Christians, to choose God’s Word and not thespeculations of men. We Christians need to get off the fence.“Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15).Will we compromise and serve the gods of evolution or standtall and stand firm “against the wiles of the devil”(Ephesians 6:11b).

You cannot be an evolutionist and believe the Bible as itis written. The plain word of Scripture is “God created.”Therefore, evolution of molecules-to-man or wolves-to-whales is a false speculation of man. Walter Brown reveals 57


34 See: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution (Brisbane: Answers in Genesis,1999), p. 76.

www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp

irreconcilable differences between the Bible and “theistic”evolution in his book, In the Beginning [The Center forScientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016,1989, pp. 110-115].

MICRO VERSUS MACRO EVOLUTIONWhen speaking of evolution as a false speculation, we

mean macroevolution—one cell to man. What scientists callmicroevolution, obviously occurs. Microevolution might bedefined as genetic variation, but a better definition is “randomerrors in the genes” within a certain kind of organism. Newspecies can occur within, but not out of God’s created“kinds.” For example, people are all different even though wecome from one set of parents (Adam and Eve, then Noah andthe Mrs.). How can five billion plus people vary so widely inappearance and abilities if we all come from the same set ofparents? This is adaptation or, preferably, genetic variation, orperhaps, genetic drift. It is not any type of evolution in thesense of changes in the genes.

Microevolution is random changes (errors) in the geneticmakeup of an organism. An example might be a bird bornwith a missing wing on one side or a cat with no whiskers.Microevolution is almost always harmful or neutral to a life-form.

Macroevolution is something becoming something elsedue to changes that produce NEW information in the genes—such as a cold-blooded reptile becomes a warm-blooded birdor a fish becomes an amphibian or oats become corn.

We have different species of corn, dogs and mustard, butthey are still identified as corn, dogs and mustard. There ispopcorn, sweet corn, and field corn; hounds, poodles andcollies; many varieties of mustard. This does not proveevolution to be true. It only displays the vast amount of


original, God-designed genetic information within thefamilies of corn, dogs, and mustard.

Researchers using their intelligence, computers, andsophisticated laboratory equipment can genetically engineer,for example, corn. Perhaps microevolution is a term thatcould be used to describe what changed the corn, but it wasnot a random, accidental process. This genetically alteredcorn may be less susceptible to a certain fungus out in thefield, which is good for corn producers, but questions arebeing raised about whether the corn might not be healthy forpeople to eat.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLEHow might a creationist explain all the different varieties

of people? God’s record of the Tower of Babel incident inGenesis 11 provides the answer:

And the whole earth was of one language, and of onespeech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, thatthey found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, “Come, let us make brick,and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, andslime had they for mortar.

And they said, “Come, let us build us a city and a tower,whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us aname, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the wholeearth.

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower,which the children of men builded.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and theyhave all one language; and this they begin to do: and nownothing will be restrained from them, which they haveimagined to do.

Come, let us go down, and there confound theirlanguage, that they may not understand one another’sspeech.


So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon theface of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because theLord did there confound the language of all the earth: andfrom thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the faceof all the earth (Genesis 11:1-9).

In the beginning, everyone spoke the same language.Therefore, they were able to pool their intellectual resources.Everyone could talk to everyone else. As a result, nothing was“impossible for them” or “restrained from them” (Genesis11:6). They chose to violate God’s command to scatter acrossthe earth (Genesis 9:1), a violation that resulted in Godcreating the different basic languages. Have you ever thoughtabout the amazing miracle that our Lord performed at Babel?He not only created fully formed languages, but also, beforehe could instantly program every person on earth with newlycreated languages, He had to highlight and delete from theirbrains their old language! And then He put all their memoriesback into each person’s brain in their new language!Husbands still knew who their wives and children were andthey remembered how to build, cook, hunt, etc. Oh, thewisdom, genius and power of the God of the Bible!

From Babel onward, only small populations of peopleisolated from other people groups could communicate witheach other. This would explain the “Cave Man” period (seeJob 30) as language restrictions and the chaos of the“scattering period” could certainly create some extremelyisolated and primitive pockets of people. The languagerestrictions forced them to disperse across the earth and “in-breed” with relatives. Certain types of people emerged afterseveral generations of this inbreeding. [(God eventuallyproclaimed inbreeding to be sin and incest in the Law ofMoses. Cain and Seth took wives from among their sisters orcousins but this was not sin until the Law came.


Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments:which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin tohim, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thymother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shaltnot uncover her nakedness.

The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou notuncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, ordaughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, orborn abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt notuncover...(Leviticus 18:5ff).]

Scientists tell us that all the races of mankind came froma single, female parent. On this point, scripture does notnegate “science.” Eve is the mother of the race of Adam ofwhich we all are members. The different types of humans(variations within the human “kind”) are most probably aresult of the scattering of people around the globe by Godafter the Tower of Babel.

LANGUAGES DON’T BEGIN WITH GRUNTSThe study of language has developed into a complex field

of scholarship. Linguists tell us that languages get more andmore complex the farther back they trace them. The older(“more primitive”) a language is, the more complex it appearsto be. This is powerful evidence against evolution.

If evolution is true and man gradually evolved from moreprimitive creatures, language should get more and moresimple the older it is said to be. Prehistoric man should havecommunicated first with grunts; then with single syllables;then with multi-syllabic words (ba-na-na); then, withsentence fragments, developing into sentences (“I wantbanana”), etc. What is found is just the opposite. Earlylanguages such as Sumerian are so complex that only a


handful of the most brilliant scholars can decipher them. TheTower of Babel incident explains the “races” and the problemof complex “primitive” languages. God created the languagesinstantly and fully mature. Evolution offers no goodexplanation for the complexity of the earliest knownlanguages!

THE BEGINNING OF ENGLISHLinguistic researchers from around the world have

published their ideas concerning the geographic location ofthe “root” of English. Linguists call this language Proto-Indo-European. Two Russian linguistic experts, ThomasGamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov, have offered evidence“...that Indo-European originated in an area known asAnatolia, which is now part of Turkey, and from there spreadthroughout Europe and the sub-continent.” (See U.S. Newsand World Report, Nov. 5, 1990, page 62.)

U.S. News and World Report was not the first publicationto report that language can be traced back to Turkey. TheBible records for us that Noah and his family had their post-flood beginnings and first post-flood conversations in Turkey:

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on theseventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat(Genesis 8:4).

Scientists trace language back to a particular place onearth; the Bible would describe that place to be the mountainsof Ararat in Turkey. The linguists agree! Of course, there areother language groups on earth that someone might claim hadtheir origin in Australia or the Amazon thousands of yearsago. Your ideas about the origin of language are determinedby your “worldview glasses.” If Noah and his family were thefirst people talking on planet earth after the global flood, andthe Bible teaches nothing else, then all languages will sooner


or later be traced back to Noah or to the Tower of Babelincident.

BABEL AND HI-TECH SCIENCESince the creation of languages at the Tower of Babel, the

endeavors of generations of mankind have been limited (notable to do the impossible) by the language barrier. But now,for the first time since the Tower of Babel, our generation hasa common international language—the language of hi-techcomputers. With computers, we can again pool ourinternational research and knowledge and do the impossible(man on the moon, heart transplants, Concorde jet travel,etc.). God stepped into time to stop this situation in Genesis11:5-7:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, whichthe children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, thepeople is one, and they have all one language; and this theybegin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them,which they have imagined to do. Come, let us go down, andthere confound their language, that they may not understandone another’s speech.

Again mankind has a common language. If God stoppedone generation from doing what they “imagined,” what mightHe do in our generation? The imagined ideas of evolution areconvincing more and more people that God did not make usand is not necessary for any part of our existence. We arerapidly becoming a people who believe the bottom line ofWilliam Henley’s poem Invictus: “I am the master of my fate,I am the captain of my soul.” This was the attitude ofBabylon, and the Creator was not pleased.

One other thought to consider in Genesis 11—could thepeople of Babel have been building a waterproof tower? Thebiblical text states the use of specially fired bricks (hardened)and the use of waterproof tar (“slime” KJV) for mortar. The


flood judgment of Noah’s day would have been fresh on theminds of these people. Could they have been shaking theirfists at God (rebelling) with their pooled intellectual resourcesas they built a waterproof tower, thus making a statement?“God, you can’t get us again with a flood! We will all cometogether in our waterproof tower that reaches into the sky. Wewill save our own lives in spite of You. We will control ourdestiny. We will take charge of our lives.” How much of thisattitude is like Lucifer—“I will be like the Most High”(Isaiah 14:13,14)?

The science of that day may have convinced the peoplethat they could quite satisfactorily live apart from theirCreator. Scientists today climb into their ivory towers and sayin their hearts and in their papers: “There is no God. We cando quite well without Him. We are all gods and control ourown destiny. Evolution has proven that we can be herewithout the necessity of God.” Unfortunately, politicallycorrect thinking has infected the church. Each of us must“Keep thy heart with all diligence” (Proverbs 4:23) and notbecome compromised, neutralized and diluted with the waysof the world. Truly there is a way that seems right, but it endsin death (Proverbs 14:12).

EVOLUTIONAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Scientists often make proclamations and publish papersthat elevate them to god-like status. Are we forced to believethat science and the scientific method have “toppled” God?From our earliest school days, we are taught that science isbased on careful experimentation, observation, anddisciplined thought. Science gives us facts. We can trust it.We are further educated by television programs andinterviews with Ph.D.s like Carl Sagan stating that “evolutionis no longer a theory, but a proven fact.” This is not the


scientific method! Evolutionist, Hy Ruchlis, defines thescientific method:

The Scientific Method is the basic set of procedures thatscientists use for obtaining new knowledge about the universe inwhich we live.35

Making a proclamation that evolution is no longer atheory, but a proven fact is just that—a proclamation. It is nottestable science. It does not fit within the definition of theScientific Method. Scientific method begins with making anobservation. Then, prior knowledge is consulted about yourobservation and a hypothesis is formed (the hypothesis issome kind of prediction you make about your observation).Once you arrive at your hypothesis, you design anexperiment, collect whatever information (data) you can fromthe results of your experiment and then attempt to interpretyour data (results). At this point you again consult priorknowledge and then form your conclusions about yourexperiment. Ruchlis continues:

Unless the teachings of the authorities on a subject are basedupon scientific method, error can be just as easily transmitted asfact...

The most important point to remember about the method ofscience is that it rests upon the attitude of open mind. Inaccordance with this attitude, one has the right to question anyaccepted fact. One who searches for truth has to learn to questiondeeply the things that are generally accepted as being obviouslytrue (Emphasis added).36

How does evolution as a “scientific” explanation fororigins measure up under Ruchlis’ explanation of scientificmethod? It receives a failing grade. Could evolution be“error...transmitted as fact?” It certainly could. Do


35 Hy Ruchlis, Discovering Scientific Method (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 7.36 Ibid., Ruchlis, pp. 7,8.

evolutionists present an “open mind?” Do they permit theirclassroom students to question evolution as perhaps not being“...obviously true?” On the contrary, evolutionists have amplydemonstrated they want only one view taught in theclassrooms of the world. When a credentialed scientist who isa creationist presents hard evidence to support the Creator andHis creation, he or she is accused of teaching religion.

But evolution from one cell to man is not based on thescientific method37 and is therefore a faith system. Thatmeans it is just as “religious” as belief in special creation. Thequestion is not, “Are evolution, science and creationreligions?” but “which system of belief—creation orevolution—has the most factual science to back it up?” Forexample, evolution offers no experimentally verifiableexplanation for the origin of matter. There is also no scientificexplanation for the origin of life. No doubt about it, Creationand Evolution are both religious faith systems when talkingabout origins.

MACROEVOLUTION IS NOT TESTABLEDavid E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research,

University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger(National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) havestudied the scientific method and its relationship to theprocesses of evolution. Their studied opinion is thatmacroevolution is beyond the range of “testable hypothesis.”In other words, it is not able to be proven factually true withthe scientific method.


37 “The open mind is one important aspect of the scientific attitude which lies atthe base of scientific method. A person who approaches a problem with a closed mind,unwilling to examine new facts, without any desire to make careful observations, andsubject to the tyranny of certainty, has little or no chance of solving that problemproperly. But a person with scientific attitudes, who knows how easy it is to be wrong,who examines new facts even if they seem to contradict his pet beliefs, who actuallygoes out hunting for such facts—such a person has a head start along the road to thesolution of any problem he faces” (Ibid: Ruchlis, p. 11).

The origin of the first living cell is scientifically“unknowable.” In spite of this, evolutionists Green andGoldberger38 deny the existence of anything supernatural(“paraphysical”). Contrary to the thinking of these twoscientists, macroevolution is not science: it is a religion basedon faith. Yet religious evolutionists are not willing to letreligious creationists present their views in the public schoolsystem. In fact, as we all know, our courts here in America(“...the land of the free and the home of the brave.”) will notallow an alternative view for the origin of man to be presentedin our classrooms without some sort of objection. If creationis so obviously an absurd option for belief, one wouldcertainly have to question why it is such a threatening conceptto consider in the classrooms of our children. Surely, ifevolution is true and as easily validated as scientistscontend, there should be no threat at all in allowing it tobe challenged by the “scientifically absurd” option ofcreation.

It is interesting to note that a growing number ofevolutionary scientists are realizing that there is a gross lackof scientific evidence to support the molecules-to-manevolution model. The gnawing reality is that, as oneevolutionist has stated: “The creationists seem to have thebetter argument.”


38 “...the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions,which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. Theavailable facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.

This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish topoint out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoidtrying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within theframework for frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall intothe same category of unknowables” [David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research,University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.) and Robert F. Goldberger (NationalInstitutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.), Molecular Insights into the LivingProcess (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406-407, quoted from The QuoteBook, p. 20].

THE LORD WILL PREVAILWhen one religion is in competition with another religion,

the true religion will ultimately prevail. The God of creationis already the victor. An anonymous writer, M.B., whoworked for the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)expressed it this way:

God created the Heaven and the Earth. Quickly He wasfaced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmentalimpact statement. He was granted a temporary permit for theheavenly part of the project, but was stymied with a cease anddesist order for the earthly part.

Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why He began Hisearthly project in the first place. He replied that He just liked tobe creative!

Then God said, “Let there be light” and immediately theofficials demanded to know how the light would be made. Wouldthere be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? Godexplained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire. Godwas granted permission to make light, assuming that no smokewould result from the ball of fire, and to conserve energy, thelight would have to be out half of the time. God agreed and saidHe would call the light “Day” and the darkness, “Night.” Theofficials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, “Let the Earth bring forth green herb and such asmay seed.” The Environmental Protection Agency agreed solong as native seed was used. Then God said, “Let the watersbring forth the creeping creatures having life; and the fowl thatmay fly over the Earth.” Officials pointed out that this wouldrequire the approval of the Game and Fish Commissioncoordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and theAudubongelic Society.

Everything was okay until God said He wanted to completethe project in six days. Officials said that it would take at least100 days to review the application and impact statement. Afterthat there would be a public hearing. Then there would be 10 to12 months before....

At this point, God created hell!


Evolution may be winning some tactical skirmishes inteamwork with Satan’s world system, but let us never forgetthat our Lord will have the last word. The Creator tells us howeverything will conclude in Philippians 2:10,11:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things inheaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: Andthat every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, tothe glory of God the Father (Emphasis added).

Our Lord, our Creator is the Victor! Isaac Asimov, CarlSagan, Ernst Mayr, and Stephen Jay Gould, as well as thatevolutionist college professor or schoolteacher, will all bowdown before their Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ the Lord.They will confess out loud with their own tongue, “JesusChrist is Lord,” to the glory of God the Father. They haveexamined the creation and have willfully chosen to believe alie. Unless they come to the Lord Jesus in simple faith andconfess their sinful rebellion against Him, they will “bow”and “confess” at the judgment to no avail. They will appear atthe Judgment before God their Creator without excuse.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest inthem; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things thatare made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that theyare without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified himnot as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in theirimaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an

image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things (Romans 1:19-23).

The great evolutionary minds of the day have a tendencyto elevate man and creature to the status of God. From


chemicals to man, all is essentially equal. “All is One!” But isthis wisdom or is it foolishness? God says: “The fear of theLord is the beginning of wisdom: And the knowledge ofthe Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). Truewisdom is belief in God the Creator. There is unity and thereis diversity in His creation. Man might look like a monkeyand even act like a monkey, but he cannot take a bloodtransfusion from a monkey. As professing Christians, whenwe fail to bow before God in recognition of His sovereigntyand omnipotence, we open ourselves to being tainted withvain philosophies and the foolish speculations of this worldsystem. Have we so devoted ourselves to learning the ways ofthe world that we have neglected the ways of the Word? Dowe stand condemned before our Creator because our truecommitment lies with the imaginations and speculations ofmen rather than with the eternal truths of the Bible? Are welacking faith because we have drifted into subjecting theBible to science instead of subjecting “science” to the Bible?Are we seeking the approval of men more than the approvalof God (John 12:43)? Truly, “There is a way which seemethright unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways ofdeath” (Proverbs 14:12). “O God, help us with our unbelief!”




#3

The Black and YellowGarden Spider

The black and yellow garden spider is a special creationof the God of the Bible. As does each species of spider, it hasits own unique web, which may be spun more than two feet indiameter. At the center of the web, the spider makes a densearea of silk that often gives the appearance of a zipper orzigzag bulk of silk.

The female weaves an egg sac that is pear-shaped andabout one inch in diameter. She then hangs the egg sacsomewhere close to her main web.

This spider lays all her eggs at once. There are usually 40 or50. As each egg is expelled, the female dusts it with a powderysubstance. This dusting gives the egg a coating that looks like thebloom on a plum or a grape.

The eggs are enclosed in a silken cup at the center of the sac.The cup, in turn, is covered by a layer of flossy silk. And foradditional protection the female weaves another layer of silkaround both the cup and the floss. This outer covering is tightlywoven and brown in color.

Shortly after the eggs are laid they hatch. The young areknown as spiderlings. They break out of the shells by means ofan organ known as the “egg tooth.” This later disappears.39

The black and yellow garden spider is like a miniaturemanufacturing plant. It produces different kinds of webbing

39 Will Barker, Winter-Sleeping Wildlife (New York: Harper and Row, Pubs.,1958), pp. 94- 96.

87

in more than one color for different purposes, as well asmaking the powdery substance with which it coats its eggs.Some of its webbing is sticky to entrap insects for food. Otherparts of the web are not sticky, enabling the spider to moverapidly across the web without ensnaring itself. How doesevolution (the impersonal plus time plus chance) explain thecomplicated ability of one spider to produce different types ofwebbing for different purposes and even in different colors(varying from white to brown)? And how does evolutionexplain the presence of an “egg tooth” in a baby spider?

When the spider decides it is time to move on to newterritory, it has an ingenious means of travel:

To reach new locations the spider travels by a means oftransportation known as “ballooning.” A spiderling or spiderthrows out streams of silk. These threads form a sort of “flyingcarpet.” It rises on warm currents of ascending air, and spidersand spiderlings are borne aloft and scattered far and wide.

Sometimes they go as high as 14,000 to 15,000 feet andtravel hundreds or even thousands of miles.40

Spiders undergo several moults before they are fullygrown. If they do not shed their skin, they die. How would thespider know this until it grew too big for its shell and died?Dead spiders do not evolve new abilities!

The skin moults and splits open in a special manner. First,the spider injects a certain liquid called “moulting fluid”between its outer old skin and its newly developing skin.Where does this special fluid come from, and how does thespider know what to do with it and when to use it? Using themoulting fluid too soon or too late is fatal!

The way that the old skin splits is crucial. If it cracks openin the wrong places, or at wrong angles, the spider perishes.


40 Ibid., Barker, p. 96.

Once the old skin is sufficiently loose, splits appear alongthe sides of the body and in front of the eyes. But no horizontalsplit occurs across the body. The vertical split along each side ofthe body and the one crosswise in front of the eyes form a flap ofskin.

The spider pushes up the flap like a man thrusting up ahinged trap door. It pushes and pushes and pushes until the flapdrops back over the abdomen. Out of the opening wriggles thespider.41

What infinite care our Creator-God has taken in thedesign of the spider! This little creature breaks the rules of theevolution model with its marvelous complexity. It neededGod to create it just like it is with all its abilities andpeculiarities.

During the summer of 2001, seven garden spiders lived invarious places around our house in Texas. As we fed themgrasshoppers and crickets (I toss them into the web, but mywife places them in the web), we noticed that they seemed tohave different personalities. Most of them would rush outacross the web to grab their meal, but one was more cautious.She would wait until the right moment to pounce upon herprey. One day, Jenna Dee placed a large, dead grasshopper inthis spider’s web. I stayed to see what would happen. The bigfemale spider just watched the lifeless hopper for severalminutes. Then she took her two front legs, reached out andtweaked the web. It appeared that she was attempting to shakeher web to see if the trapped grasshopper would move. Doesa spider think?

Another large female liked to swing on her web. Sheseemed to notice when we were bringing her something toeat. Several times I walked by her with nothing in my handsand she did not swing. But by the end of the summer almostevery time we got close to her with a grasshopper she would

The Black and Yellow Garden Spider 89

41 Ibid., Barker, p. 97.

start swinging. Could she have been showing her excitementat the prospect of getting a treat? Well, I can’t resist sharingone more observation. A third spider had a short trigger. Theinstant you tossed a bug into her web, she ran and bit it andquickly wrapped it in sheets of webbing. One day I tossed achlorine-soaked cricket into her web. She ran down and bit itand then jumped back and looked at it like, “What is this? Ittastes awful.” She then turned around and walked back to herzipper and ignored it. Okay, one more quick one—Anotherday I put four grasshoppers in the same area of a spider’s web.One hour later I came back to see what she had done. To myastonishment, she had placed the four grasshoppers almostexactly twelve inches apart in the form of a perfect square!

The black and yellow garden spider is a marvel of God’screation—the God for whom nothing is impossible (see Luke1:37; Jeremiah 32:17, 27; Mark 10:27; Matthew 19:26), whodaily lives to make intercession for us (Romans 8:34) andwho loves us so much that He willingly gave His life for us(John 3:16).


4“MISSING LINKS” ARE MISSING

As a college student I was convinced that evolutionwas true and that, in time, scientists would find the

missing pieces. I thought science would ultimately provide uswith an unbroken chain of evidence supporting the evolutionand relationship of all things. Many scientists are still hopingfor this evidence. However, Stephen Jay Gould, formerProfessor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard, believesthat the unbroken chain of evolutionary evidence will neverbe found—that what we see in the fossils and in livingcreatures is more accurately explained with the creationmodel. Gould was still an evolutionist, but he wrote:

The birds of Massachusetts and the bugs in my backyard areunambiguous members of species recognized in the same way byall experienced observers.

This notion of species as “natural kinds”...fit splendidly withcreationist tenets....

But how could a division of the organic world into discreteentities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimedceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?42

Dr. Gould is making a statement about what we see asopposed to what evolution theorizes we ought to be seeing.We see discrete entities, distinct species. In the fossil record,there are fish, turtles and cockroaches. They are individually

42 Stephen Jay Gould, “A Quahog is a Quahog,” Natural History, Vol. 88 (7),August- September 1979, p. 18.

91

distinct, identifiable creatures. In life, we can also see fish,turtles and cockroaches. We can identify them. They are not½ fish and ½ turtle or ½ turtle and ½ cockroach. We do notsee elephants evolving fins or whales evolving wings. Thediscrete entities we see in the fossil record and in life are not“questionable” species. They are not transitional forms, asevolution would require. This is a problem for theevolutionist. If evolution is true, creatures should not be soeasily identifiable. Every creature should be difficult tocategorize, classify and name, if evolution is correct (and lifeis “evolving along”). Could it be that evolution is not correct?That each animal is easily identifiable (as giraffe or beetle orfish or turtle or cockroach) truly does “fit splendidly withcreationist tenets.” Ceaseless change in the fossils or livingplants and animals does not appear to be “...the fundamentalfact of nature (Emphasis added).”43

GOD CREATED KINDSGod tells us He created each plant and animal after its

own kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Nothing evolvedfrom some lower life form and nothing is presently evolvinginto a higher life form. From a creationist position, what wesee in the fossil record and in life is exactly what we wouldexpect to see. And what should we expect to see with ourBiblical worldview glasses on? We should see discreet,identifiable living and fossil forms which are or were fullyfunctional, designed and made according to the wisdom andpower of Almighty God the Creator! This is exactly what wesee. Each form of life displays the attributes of its own kindof flesh: flesh of fish, flesh of birds, flesh of beasts, flesh ofhumans, etc. (1 Corinthians 15:39).

The lack of transitional forms in fossil and living entitiesis why evolutionists have the “missing link” problem,


43 Ibid.

although some deny this. The “missing links” are missing.They are completely absent in the fossil record and in livingorganisms. They never will be found because the Creator didnot create transitional forms between kinds of creatures.

God created each plant and animal after its own kind,therefore, you would not expect to see “missing links.” Eventhe most famous missing link, Archaeopteryx, is no longerconsidered, by many evolutionists, to be a “link.” Years ago,Archaeopteryx was believed to be a link (transitional form)between reptiles and birds. Now it is known to be a bird evenin evolutionary circles.44

“MISSING LINKS” OR “UNBROKEN TIES”The evolutionist’s propaganda machine constantly

barrages us through public TV, magazines and newspaperswith broad ambiguities and undocumented claims supportingevolutionary theory. A letter in The Dallas Morning News byDrs. Alvin and Joel Taurog of Southwestern Medical Schoolexemplifies this type of propaganda:

Biological evolution asserts that all living organisms areinterrelated by unbroken ties of genealogy. Although referred toas a theory, evolution is as much a fact as anything discovered byscience, as well confirmed as the rotation of the planets aroundthe sun or the roundness of the earth. The concept of evolution iscentral to biology and a massive body of evidence corroboratesthe evolutionary origin of all living organisms, includinghumans. While much remains to be learned regarding themechanisms of evolution, the evolution of species is accepted bybiologists as proven fact.45

Let us evaluate this paragraph of Drs. Taurog. If “...allliving organisms are interrelated by unbroken ties of

“Missing Links” are Missing 93

44 See The Dallas Morning News, Science Update, by Matt Crenson, October 23,1995, and Nature of the same month.

45 Drs. Alvin and Joel Taurog, The Dallas Morning News, March 6, 1987, Lettersto the Editor.

genealogy,” then the leading evolutionary thinker of Harvard,Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, is wrong. Gould states:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages betweenmajor transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even inour imagination, to construct functional intermediates in manycases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualisticaccounts of evolution.46

“Gradualistic evolution” means evolution of one creature intoa more sophisticated and more complex creature over longperiods of time. One creature gradually becomes another ifgiven enough time. Gradualistic evolution, if true, shouldhave evidence of transitional intermediate life forms in fossilsand in living animals. Gould continues:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains preciouslittle in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between majorgroups are characteristically abrupt.47

What Gould is saying is that the missing links remainmissing. There are no transitional (in-between) forms. Noplant or animal is evolving into a higher form as far as thefossils can confirm. Even in living forms we do not see anychickie-ducks or duckie-chicks!

“SUNRISE” OR “EARTH TURN”Where are these “unbroken ties” referred to by Drs.

Taurog? They present no scientific evidence to support theirview. The evidence is only implied. They do appear to erect a“straw- man-creationist” and to take a few sideways swipes athim. In mentioning the “rotation of the planets around the sunor the roundness of the earth” as true science, are they


46 Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?”Paleobiology, Vol. 6 (1), January, 1980, p. 127, as quoted in The Quote Book, p. 8.

47 Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol.LXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, p. 24. Quoted in The Quote Book, p. 8.

implying that the Bible and creationists believe in the “sunrising on a flat earth?” How accurate are these doctors in theuse of language? Do they say to a patient, “Did you see thebeautiful sunrise this morning?” Or would they bescientifically accurate and ask, “Did you see the beautifulearth turn this morning?”48 The Bible uses common, ordinarylanguage. That the earth is not flat, but a sphere is taught inIsaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon (above) the circle ofthe earth...” (KJV). The Bible teaches that as God looksdown upon earth, it appears as a sphere or circle. Psalm 19 isa scripture that uses normal language and refers to the sunrising. The Bible is not inaccurate because it uses commonfigures of speech.

Where can we find the “massive body of evidence [that]corroborates the evolutionary origin of all living creatures,including humans,” as Drs. Taurog allege? The “massivebody of evidence” proving the evolution of man would not filla single casket according to evolutionist and prolific authorDr. Lyall Watson:

The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that thereare still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact isthat all the physical evidence we have for human evolution canstill be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!49

Drs. Alvin and Joel Taurog say still more:

When religion and science come into conflict, it is generally inthe realm of belief.... Scientific belief is based solely uponevidence that is validated by observation, experiment and


48 There is another idea called “Geocentricity.” It teaches that the earth isstationary and everything else revolves around it. There is apparently no way toconclusively prove either view without stepping outside of our universe to observe howthe stars, planets, etc., are moving in relationship to each other.

49 Dr. Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982,p. 44.

prediction; neither religious belief, nor any other belief system, issubject to these constraints.50

Apparently, Drs. Taurog believe that the evolution modelof one cell to man is science and thus can be validated withthe scientific method. Creation science is apparently religiousbelief in their view. They add, “The interrelationships amongliving organisms from microbes to man have never beenclearer...” It is not clear precisely what these doctors arereferring to, but from the smallest life forms to the largest,from the simplest to the most complex, there is no scientificevidence to prove that they (small to large or simple tocomplex) are related as ancestors to or progeny from eachother. Natural History, May 1977, p. 14, published the wordsof the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil recordpersists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionarytrees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodesof their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, notthe evidence of fossils... We fancy ourselves as the only truestudents of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account ofevolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that wenever see the very process we profess to study.

CHRISTIANS RAISE THEWHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER!

Do we Christians realize how much the world’s culturehas affected us? In the late 1800’s, Darwinian evolutionbecame popular. It appeared that the evolutionists had proventhe universe to be billions of years old. It seemed so obviousthat people came from a monkey-like creature. What did ourtheologians do? Up came the white flag! They inventedtheistic evolution in order to squeeze evolution into the Bible.


50 Drs. Alvin and Joel Taurog, The Dallas Morning News, March 6, 1987, Lettersto the Editor.

In so doing, they subjected the Bible to “science” rather thansubjecting “science” to the Bible, and surrendered to thecurrent cultural fad of Darwinism. But we gained the approvalof the academicians and intellectuals, didn’t we? (See John5:44; 12:43.)

Now the slow, gradual evolution over millions of yearsidea is passing out of favor. Dr. Gould has popularizedpunctuated equilibria, apparently due to the “extreme rarity oftransitional forms in the fossil record.” Atheist andevolutionist Richard Milton, England’s premier evolutionaryscience journalist writes:

The difficulty with punctuated equilibrium is that it is whollyspeculative and has been introduced simply to account for thelack of fossils that ought to exist in the neo-Darwinist theory.51

What are the Christians doing? We are moving with ourculture away from Darwinian evolution (theistic evolution isDarwinian evolution with Bible verses tacked on) intopunctuated equilibria which we have renamed “ProgressiveCreation.” (Progressive creationism, as far as this writer candiscern, is Gould’s punctuated equilibria with Bible versestacked on!) The apparent leader in the progressive creationcamp is Hugh Ross. Ross believes that the universe is 16billion years old and the Flood was a local river overflow.Further, he believes that a soulless race of people roamed theearth before Adam. They lived and died for thousands ofyears before Adam sinned and God proclaimed death as thepenalty for sin! Death before death is an interesting idea.

Both theistic evolution (Christianized Darwinism) andprogressive creationism (Christianized punctuated equilibria)demand billions of years of earth history and eliminate theglobal flood of the days of Noah. Neither of these ideas is


51 Richard Milton, Shattering the myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: ParkStreet Press), 1997, p.215.

Biblically accurate or acceptable. You see, if the Flood wasonly 4500 years ago as the Bible teaches, the evolutionistsclaim there could not yet be all the diversity of animal andplant life—there would not have been enough time for all ofthese life forms to evolve. So the theistic evolutionists andprogressive creationists, following the lead of the paganevolutionists, hold to the old earth idea. And this is even inspite of evolutionists in their areas of specialty saying thecreationists have the better arguments!

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY DISPROVESEVOLUTION

Even at the level of molecules, evidence to supportevolution is lacking. In Chapter 2, we discussed the fact thatat the cellular level of living creatures there are importantdifferences that distinguish between basic kinds of flesh. Forinstance, the cells that make up the flesh of birds and fish arenot the same. Scientists are studying even smaller entitiesthan cells as they examine the molecules of the cell. This fieldof study is named Molecular Biology.

A book that every Christian family (and non-Christian, aswell) should have is, Of Pandas and People: The CentralQuestion of Biological Origins. Written by creationists as asupplemental high school biology textbook supporting theview that life demands a designer, this book deals with themolecular evidence for creation.

The study of living things on the molecular level is arelatively new field. The information that scientists derive frommolecular biology may be used to compare and categorizeorganisms, a field known as biochemical taxonomy. Biochemicalanalysis holds out the promise of making taxonomy a moreprecise science, because it allows differences between variousorganisms to be quantified and measured....

Proponents of intelligent design read similarity in structureas a reflection of similarity in function. All living organisms must


survive in the same universe and must fit its ecological web. Allmust fit into a food chain. The need to function within a commonuniverse puts common physical and chemical requirements on allorganisms. It would be both logical and efficient for anintelligent agent to design living things with a commonbiochemical base....

The significant new contribution biochemistry offers is amathematically quantifiable means of determining how similarclasses of organisms are. But when several similarities are putside by side, the pattern that emerges contradicts all expectationsbased on evolution (Emphasis added).52

Animals that evolutionists have always believed to beclosely related in the evolutionary chain are now known to beunrelated when studied at the molecular level. Kenyon andDavis continue:

To use classic evolutionary terminology, amphibians areintermediate between fish and the other land-dwellingvertebrates. Yet, analysis of their amino acids does not placeamphibians in an intermediate position. This is true no matterwhat species of amphibian we choose for comparison. Basedupon the evolutionary series, we would expect some amphibiansto be closer to fish (“primitive” species) and others to be closerto reptiles (“advanced” species). But this is not the case. Nomatter which species are taken as the basis for comparison, thedistance between amphibians and fish, or between amphibiansand reptiles, is always the same....

The revolution in molecular biology has given us new,mathematically quantifiable data on the similarities in livingthings. But the data have served to support a picture of theorganic world consistent with the theory of intelligent design(Emphasis added).53

Author Michael Denton [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis(Harper and Row, 1986)], a Ph.D. in molecular biology (who


52 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas:Haughton Publishing Co., 1989), pp. 34-36.

53 Ibid., pp. 37, 38.

is not a creationist as far as I know), argues that evolutionfrom one cell to man is not indicated at the level of themolecule. After looking at molecules for evidence of“missing links” between the different classes of creatures,Denton writes (p. 286):

There is a total absence of partially inclusive or intermediateclasses, and therefore none of the groups traditionally cited byevolutionary biologists as intermediate gives even the slightesthint of a supposedly transitional character.

Of course, if there is no evidence for evolutionaryrelationships at the level of molecules, which are the basicbuilding blocks of nature, then the idea of evolution ofenzymes, proteins, plasma and tissue is totally absurd. TheBible says:

For thus saith the Lord, that created the heavens;God himself that formed the earth and made it;he hath established it, he created it not in vain,he formed it to be inhabited:I am the Lord; and there is none else...and there is no God else beside me;a just God and a Savior;there is none beside me (Isaiah 45:18,21b).

Dr. Vincent Sarich, an evolutionist and Professor at theUniversity of California at Berkeley, did a series of studies atthe molecular level on the evolution of man. At first, hisevolutionary colleagues scorned his studies. He had theaudacity to announce in 1967 that Ramapithecus (proclaimedby Elwyn Simons and David Pilbeam of Yale to be one of theearliest ancestors of man) was not at all ancestral to man, butmore probably an ancestor to the orangutan.

The year was 1967. Sarich and his partner, Allan Wilson,were comparing blood proteins from human beings, chimpanzeesand gorillas—finding them remarkably similar. After analyzing


the slight differences, they decided that the ancestors of humanbeings must have diverged from those of the African apes onlyabout 5 million years ago, instead of the 20 million to 30 millionyears that fossil evidence seemed to suggest.

Their conclusion was regarded by many paleontologists asheresy. It was bad enough that Sarich and Wilson werechallenging the conventional estimate of the age of the humanline. Worse, they were doing it with test tubes andbiochemistry—all but ignoring the fossils on which so muchevolutionary theory was based. Most experts then believed thathuman beings could trace their ancestry at least as far back as a14 million-year-old creature called Ramapithecus, andpaleontologist Elwyn Simons, then of Yale, spoke for many ofhis colleagues when he pronounced the Sarich-Wilson work“impossible to believe.”

Times have changed. While Simons still thinksRamapithecus may be a human ancestor, he has little company.New fossil discoveries have convinced many experts that theanimal was ancestral to the orangutan.54

Molecular research is eliminating the supposedevolutionary ancestors of people, one by one.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of Godcreated he him; male and female created he them (Genesis1:27).


54 Kevin McKean, “Preaching the Molecular Gospel,” Discover, Vol. 4 (7), July1983, p. 34.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and allthe host of them by the breath of his mouth.

He gathered the waters of the sea together as an heap: helayeth up the depth in storehouses.

Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants ofthe world stand in awe of him.

For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and itstood fast.

The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.

The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughtsof his heart to all generations (Psalm 33:6-11).


The Gecko Lizard and the Human Ear 103



#4

The Gecko LizardAND

The Human Ear(Tiny Things)

These two marvels of God’s creation are included notonly to display God’s incredible designs in His creatures, butalso to acquaint you more fully with the type of informationyou can glean from the creationist magazine, Creation ExNihilo. In Vol. 14, No. 4 of Sept.-Nov. 1992, two excellentarticles appeared that are included here.55

Dr. Robert Kofahl teaches us about the gecko lizard onpage 6.

A Lizard on Your Ceiling

The gecko lizard can walk across your ceiling upside downwithout falling off. How does it do this?

Until a few years ago scientists did not know, though theyproposed several conflicting theories. Examination of the toe-pads of the gecko with optical microscopes at up to 2,000diameters magnification revealed thousands of little fibresarranged like the tufts of bristles in a toothbrush. Yet the questionremained unanswered. An answer was finally provided by thepowerful scanning electron microscope, which was able to take a

55 Robert Kofahl, Ph.D., “A Lizard on Your Ceiling,” and Tom Wagner, “YourHearing: A Powerful Pointer to God’s Creation,” Creation Ex Nihilo magazine, Vol. 14,No. 4 of Sept.-Nov. 1992 (published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd., P.O. Box302, Sunnybank, QLD, 4109, Australia). In my opinion every family should subscribeto Creation Ex Nihilo! [Also subscribe at: www.answersingenesis.org]

105

www.answersingenesis.org

series of remarkable photographs magnified to 35,000 diametersand more.

What was revealed?The gecko has on its toe pads many millions of fine fibres

tipped with little suction cups, each about eight millionths of aninch in diameter. In conjunction with this, the lizard’s feet aredesigned so that the tips of the toes bend or curl upward so thathe can peel off the suction cups gradually at each step and not gethimself too firmly stuck to the surface. It is estimated that thegecko has at least 500 million suction cups on his toes.

The extraordinary microscopic structure of the geckolizard’s toe pads clearly indicates intelligent purposeful design.No remotely plausible scheme for the origin of the gecko’ssuction cups by random mutations and natural selection has yetbeen proposed by evolutionary theorists. And should somescientist with a clever imagination succeed in devising such ascheme, he would still be without a scrap of fossil evidence todemonstrate that the hypothetical process of evolution actuallytook place in the past.

You can’t see with the naked eye the tiny suction cups on agecko’s foot. But each chevron-shaped ridge on the gecko’samazing foot pad is composed of millions of fibres tipped withmicroscopic suction cups. This allows it to walk upside downacross your ceiling, or sideways across your wall.

Is it possible that different species of geckos might havedifferent mechanisms on their footpads? The June 8, 2000issue of Nature 405 (6787), pp. 681-685, published an articleby Keller Autumn, Ph.D., et al., “Adhesive Force of a SingleGecko Foot Hair.” This team of researchers examined the tinyhairs on the foot of the Tokay gecko and arrived at anastounding conclusion: The Tokay gecko utilizes van derWaals forces to adhere to slick surfaces when scurryingupside down across them! Van der Waals forces are weak,short-range bonds between molecules.

Amazing! How would mindless, non-purposeful, totallyrandom-chance evolution produce a foot mechanism such asthe Tokay gecko? The utilization of van der Waals forces by


a friendly little lizard requires intelligence and engineeringmuch greater than humans have yet exhibited. The footmechanisms must interact favorably with whatever surfacematerials they touch (rough or smooth) or the gecko wouldfall to its death. This little gecko does not use suction cups ora sticky substance. He uses atomic or molecular attraction.With such marvelous evidence of a designer, how can anyonedoubt the existence of God?

In the issue of Creation Ex Nihilo referred to above, TomWagner composed a “Think Spot” detailing some specificsconcerning the human ear (page 13):

Your Hearing: A Powerful Pointer to God’s Creation

Contemplation of the size of things that have been createdcan be a very effective tool in comprehending the greatness ofGod. For example, consider the Creator’s technical ability in astudy of human hearing. The ability of our ears to detect sound ismuch greater than the minimum expected requirement forsurvival had man simply evolved.

In a book edited by David Lipscomb, 1988, HearingConservation in Industry, Schools, and the Military, we read onpage 303:

‘The ear is capable of sensory response to sound whosepressure at the eardrum is no greater than two ten-thousandths ofa millionth of barometric pressure. This pressure moves the eardrum about one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. Thatdimension is approximately one one-hundredth the width of ahydrogen molecule, the tiniest of all known molecules.Therefore, throughout a significant portion of the ear’s dynamicrange, it is moving in sub-molecular dimensions.’

To visually grasp the incredible sensitivity Lipscombdescribes, imagine what it would be like to watch a six-foot man,standing on the surface of the earth, shrink to only one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. The earth, shrinking also—but stillenormous when compared to the man—would proportionatelyreduce to a tiny ball no bigger than the small letter ‘o’ on thispage! The man would become utterly invisible, even to thepowerful microscopes of today.

The Gecko Lizard and the Human Ear 107

Given this example, a person can begin to appreciate theway God has created the incomprehensibly tiny, as well as theunimaginably large things of this universe. It also helps us toconsider the miracle of hearing with which our Creator hasblessed us. Something we should thank Him for. After all, ‘Faithcometh by hearing....’

So praise be to God for what He has done!


5ORANGUTANS, MONKEYS

AND MAN

When studied at the level of molecules, cells, or fossilbones, the evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-

man or man-like-apes) are not to be found. In spite of this,elaborate attempts are made to “prove” that man evolvedfrom early primates (ape-like creatures). As one surveys theliterature regarding our supposed human evolutionaryancestors, not much agreement is found. A claim by oneevolutionist is negated with claims by another.

In the late sixties and early seventies, much of thescientific community ruled Ramapithecus (an ape-likecreature) ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of itsoriginal position as ancestral to humans. When consideringRamapithecus in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrotetheir belief that the jaw of Ramapithecus was that of a true ape(Nature, Vol. 244, 1973, p. 313).

Yet, in 1982, the son of Louis and Mary Leakey (worldfamous pioneers in the study of “prehistoric” man) stated:

Ramapithecines are thought to be the group from which ourancestors evolved.56

56 Richard E. Leakey, Human Origins, Lodestar Books (New York: E.P. Dutton,1982), p. 20. For much information about fossil-man from a creationist perspectiveplease read: Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow (Baker Books: Grand Rapids,1992). Also: The Illustrated Origins Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor (EdenProductions, P.O. Box 41644 Mesa, AZ 85274-1644, 1992).

109

PILTDOWN MANIf Ramapithecus appears in school or college textbooks as

part of the evolution of man, it can be discarded, as should thePiltdown Man, which was shown to be a hoax in 1953.57

Piltdown’s filed teeth and bone had been stained to make itappear to be ancient.

Fourteen years after Piltdown Man was proven by theevolutionary scientific community to be a total fake and badjoke, Harvard University Press published these words(admittedly this is a long quote, but I include it to display howfar the evolutionary community will go to support theirinsupportable claims, even years after one of their“evidences” has been proven to be a fraud):

Unlike all other fossil men is Eoanthropus, known from afragmentary skull and the right half of a lower jaw with twoteeth, the first and second molars, in place. The specimens wereobtained by Mr. William Dawson from a small opening by theroadside at Piltdown, Sussex, England, and described by SirArthur Smith Woodward. It is difficult to determine their age, forfragments of mammals, characteristic of the Pliocene andPleistocene, are mingled in the river-borne gravel. Ifcontemporaneous with the most modern of them, Piltdown manwas probably not more recent than the third interglacial stage,since Hippopotamus and other subtropical animals occur with it.

The skull is so fragmentary that those who have studied ithave been unable to agree as to the proper reconstruction:estimates of its cranial capacity have varied from 1079 cc. to1500 cc., and an intermediate figure of about 1300 cc. has finallybeen reached. It is not at all of the Neanderthal type, but has ahigh forehead like that of modern man. Aside from the fact thatthe bones are exceedingly thick, it is not peculiar. The jaw,however, is admitted by all to be more like that of a chimpanzeethan like that of any man, living or extinct. This was recognized


57 See The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Originsby Delta Willis, with an introduction by Stephen Jay Gould (New York: Viking Press,1989), p. 24. See also: The Piltdown Man by Ronald Millar (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1972), front cover slip.

in the original description. The two teeth are like human molars,but the remainder of the jaw affords too much space to be filledby ordinary teeth. Hence, in his restoration of the anterior part,Smith Woodward made the canines large, like those of achimpanzee, and allowed for a small diastema. The correctnessof his view was demonstrated in a striking way the year afterpublication, when Dawson and Father Teilhard de Chardin, whowere resifting the gravel at the spot where the jaw was found,found a large canine. It is twice as large as that of a man andalmost exactly like that of a modern chimpanzee. Thisassociation seemed to many to be an unnatural one, so the jawwas attributed by some to a species of chimpanzee. The laterfinding of a few more fragments at a near-by site seems,however, to have convinced most of those interested that skulland jaw belong together. Eoanthropus dawsoni (Piltdown Man)is to some people the missing link between man and the apes.The forehead is high, the brow ridge insignificant, and the brainlarge, all features of man, but the chinless jaw has the big caninesof an ape.58

Thus as late as 1967, the prestigious Harvard UniversityPress was still promoting the Piltdown Hoax as a possible“...missing link between man and the apes,” when it had beenproven a sham nearly fifteen years earlier.

NEBRASKA MANNebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was

formed from a single tooth found in 1922. Evolutionist HenryFairfield Osborn, of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, published in the Illustrated London News (June 24,1922) a picture of a man, a woman and their tools from thisone tooth. A few years later, the skull was found and the toothfit perfectly in the empty socket—it was a pig’s tooth!59

Orangutans, Monkeys and Man 111

58 Percy E. Raymond, Prehistoric Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1969), pp. 282, 283.

59 See The Hominid Gang, p. 22. See also W. R. Bird, The Origin of SpeciesRevisited (Regency: Nashville) Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 227,228.

NEANDERTHAL AND CRO-MAGNONWe might also add that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man

are now believed to be normal European ‘Homo sapiens.’Some of these “prehistoric men” have a larger brain cavitythan modern man.

Dr. Percy E. Raymond of Harvard University, states inregard to Neanderthal:

In actual capacity, the cranial cavity was larger than that of theaverage European, some skulls measuring l,600 cc.60

Donald Johanson, one of the world’s most recognizedexperts on “fossil man,” writes:

...Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he wasthe same species as ourselves....

I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, withmyself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit andturning him loose in the subway. It is true; one could do it, andhe would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier-bonedthan people of today, more primitive in a few facial features. Buthe was a man. His brain was as big as modern man’s, but shapedin a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subwaybooth and recognize a token? He certainly could.61

According to evolutionist Johanson, Neanderthal is notprehistoric man, not some ancient evolutionary ancestor, butis just like us, modern man! It has also now been proven thatNeanderthals made and played musical instruments and thatthey buried their dead, just like we do!

PEKING MANPeking Man has been categorized as Homo erectus. He

disappeared during World War II. There is not a single bone


60 Raymond, p. 281.61 Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of

Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 20.

left of Peking Man, although books have been written aboutthe international search for the “bones.”

An entertaining and readable book on the search forPeking Man was written by Christopher Janus with WilliamBrashler, entitled, The Search for Peking Man. Mentioned inthe book as one of the people who aided in the discovery ofPeking Man is Teilhard De Chardin—one of the perpetratorsof the Piltdown Man hoax!62 Since De Chardin wasimplicated in the Piltdown hoax and managed to involvehimself with Peking Man as well, how can we be certain thatthe documentation we have of Peking man is reliable?

Janus records the total number of Peking Man fossilfragments before the Japanese invasion of China:

...they labeled, described, photographed and categorized the castsof the 175 fossil fragments that had been collected.63

Peking Man supposedly consisted of:

...5 skulls, about 150 jaw fragments and teeth, 9 thigh bones andfragments, 2 upper arm bones, a collar bone, and a wrist bone.64

All these bones have disappeared! Apparently, theevolutionary scientists cannot even agree on how many bonesrepresented Peking Man. Johanson records:

...5 skulls, 15 smaller pieces of the skull or face, 14 lower jawsand 152 teeth.65

So there is no hard evidence that Peking Man is anancestor of Homo sapiens. Some photographs of Pekingskulls remain. The skulls were broken into from the rear and


62 Christopher Janus, The Search for Peking Man (New York: MacMillan Pub.Co., Inc., 1975), p. 31.

63 Ibid., p. 30.64 Ibid., p. 32.65 Johanson and Edey, p. 34.

most probably, the brains served as food for true Homosapiens. It would hardly be likely that the ancient ancestor ofman lived concurrently with man and that his brains would beconsidered a delicacy of his great-grandchildren, Homosapiens. As early as 1957, French paleontologist, Dr.Marcellin Boule, proposed that the people who made the toolsthat killed Peking Man were true Homo sapiens.66

JAVA MANDr. Eugene Dubois discovered a creature in the Homo

erectus category, which he called “Java Man.” Java Man wasa skullcap and leg-bone (Trinil femur). By the end of his life,Dubois recanted. He believed the leg-bone to belong to Homosapiens and the skullcap to be that of a giant ape or gibbon.Java man was the first of the Homo erectus category. Perhapsa paragraph from Marvin Lubenow’s excellent book, Bones ofContention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p.127,would be helpful.

When people become aware of the massive misrepresentation ofthe dates for the Homo erectus fossil material, they act perplexed.But the factual evidence is so clear that it cannot successfully bechallenged. The perplexity usually gives way to the question,“Why do evolutionists do this?” The answer is obvious. If thedate range of all the fossils having Homo erectus morphologywere commonly published on a chart as they are in this book, itwould be clear that human evolution has not taken place.However, it is possible that evolutionists are not beingintentionally deceptive. The reason may be deeper and morecomplex. Because of evolutionists’ faith in and commitment toevolution, I believe we are seeing a psychological phenomenon.Evolutionists give us the dates they want Homo erectus to have,the dates they wish Homo erectus would have. I suspect it ismore a case of self-deception on the part of evolutionists than itis an attempt to deceive others. It indicates how deeply their faithhas colored their facts (Emphasis mine).


66 Marcellin Boule, Fossil Men (Dryden Press, 1957), p. 535.

HEIDELBERG MANThe other commonly mentioned Homo erectus is

Heidelberg Man. Evolutionist Johanson writes:

Heidelberg Man, for example, was named Homoheidelbergensis. His finder recognized that he was a man and,thus, belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to put him in aspecies of his own.67

Heidelberg Man consists of a single fossil—a lower jaw withteeth.68 Heidelberg Man is imagination built around a“jawbone!” Some researchers place this fossil jawbone withthe Neandertals.

“LUCY” AND THE AUSTRALOPITHECINESEven Australopithecus is open to question. The star of this

“human ancestor” is Donald Johanson’s 3½ foot tall “Lucy.”Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feetinstead of four feet, like other apes did (and still do). Lucyresembles Homo sapiens in three ways (theoretically): herknee, arm-leg length, and left pelvic bone. Except for herhuman-like knee joint, Lucy’s bones resemble the skeleton ofan extinct pygmy chimp.

FOSSIL “MAN” SKELETONS ARE COMPOSITESTo be fair to the evolutionists, the fossil skeletons that

they put together are almost always composites. In otherwords, they take a certain area of a country, assume that anybones found there probably came from the same creatures,and then often bring a bone from here and one from there and“compose” a skeleton.

Johanson published Lucy’s arm-leg length ratio to be83.9%. In other words her arm bone was said to be 83.9% as


67 Johanson and Edey, p. 36.68 Raymond, p. 280.

long as her leg bone. This would place her about midwaybetween ape (arm and leg of roughly equal length) and human(arm about 75% of leg length). The 83.9% seems quitespecific, but the leg-bone had been broken in two or moreplaces and one end was crushed. The pieces do not fitperfectly together, so there is no way to accurately measure it.The 83.9% sounds good, but it is a guess (See Ex Nihilo, Vol.6, 1983, p. 5).

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic bone. Thisbone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright.The problem is that this bone does not prove upright walking.Johanson believes the bone has been distorted by somemeans. And yet, there is no other pelvic bone with which tocompare it. The bone as it stands, more likely shows Lucy tohave walked on all fours!

According to another evolutionist, Dr. Solly Zuckerman,Australopithecus is an ape and walked on all fours like an ape.Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone of theAustralopithecines and he concluded that this telltale bonecorresponded in one type of measurement to monkeys andbaboons. Looking at it from another angle, it was“...completely unlike man, and identical with monkeys andapes.”69

Fellow evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard believesAustralopithecus walked in a fashion similar to achimpanzee70 or an orangutan. Oxnard writes:


69 “It turned out that the angle of twist between the main plane of the ilium andthe ischio-pubic part of the innominate in the Australopithecine cast corresponded tothat in the four-footed macaque or cercopitheque monkeys and baboons...Anotherdimension we have examined describes the length of the body of the ischium relativeto the innominate as a whole...In this feature, Australopithecus is completely unlikeman, and identical with monkeys and apes” [Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the IvoryTower (New York: Taplinger Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 89,91].

70 Dr. Chas. Oxnard, “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” AmericanBiology Teacher, Vol. 41, No. 5 (May 1979), p. 264. Also see: Fossils, Teeth and Sex— New Perspectives on Human Evolution (Seattle and London: University ofWashington Press, 1987), p. 227.

Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecinefossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and everystudy that we have made but...the information...shows thatwhereas the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecinefragments are generally rather similar to humans and whendifferent deviate somewhat towards the condition in Africanapes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The newinvestigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usuallyuniquely different from any living form; when they do havesimilarities with living species, they are as often as notreminiscent of the orangutan.71

Lyall Watson is right. There does not appear to be enoughbones from “true” fossil man “...to fill a single coffin.” [Iffossils interest you, Marvin Lubenow’s, Bones of Contention,and Dr. Duane Gish’s, The Fossils Still Say No! are excellentand can be found at most Christian bookstores or atwww.icr.org or www.answersingenesis.org.]

Richard Milton, atheist and evolutionist, says it this way:

In human anthropology, each new fragment of bone or toothis enthusiastically greeted as further evidence of man’s descentby natural selection from an ancestral apelike creaturewhen...every single find of this sort has been definitivelyassigned to either humans or apes, not to any intermediatecategory.

This intellectual degeneracy is the outward expression of thefact that neo-Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory andhas been transformed into an ideology—an overarching beliefsystem that pervades all thinking in the life sciences andbeyond.72

Milton doesn’t pull any punches. He later writes that truescience should be open to debate. And that good science ishard work.


71 Ibid., p. 273.72 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 240.

www.icr.org


Because it is a difficult job, a tacit understanding has arisenthat it would be bad form or unseemly to criticize science orscientists seriously, as if they were a banker who added up sumswrongly or a grocer who forgot to deliver the sausages.

I reject this tacit consensus. I am a customer for the scientificservice that we pay scientists to provide and I have a customercomplaint: I am not satisfied with the answers they haveprovided on the mechanism of evolution and I want them to goback to their laboratories and investigate further.

I believe it is high time that consumerism finds a voice in thepublic sector and in the academic world as effectively as it has inindustry and commerce. And I do not accept the convention thatscientists may be criticized only by their peers.73

Just so that there is no mistake as to where Mr. Milton iscoming from, permit me to quote him a bit more. His bookaccuses his fellow evolutionists of having no evidence fortheir evolutionary claims, especially in relationship to theevolution of man. He says that he experienced a “kind ofwitch-hunting activity by the Darwinist police” (p. 268) whenhe published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. FamousOxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, described Milton asbeing “loony,” “stupid,” and “in need of psychiatric help.” Dr.Dawkins went behind Milton’s back and wrote, “...letters tonewspaper editors alleging that I am a secret creationist andhence not to be believed” (p. 268). Milton continues:

Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not acreationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I ama professional writer and journalist who specializes in writingabout science and technology and who writes about matters thatI believe are of public interest.

For anyone, anywhere, to say that I am a creationist, a secretcreationist, a “creationist ally,” or any other such weasel-wordformulation, is an act of intellectual dishonesty by those whohave no other answer to the scientific objections I have raisedpublicly....


73 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p.276.

Darwinism still has a large number of critics and it isn’t onlycreationists who have serious doubts about the theory or whohave questioned the established view of historical geology.74

You have to respect this man! He has more intellectualhonesty than a lot of so-called Christians and he has taken alot of flack for it. But Brothers and sisters in Christ, let us beas courageous in defending the faith! Let us not beintimidated by the wisdom of men. Rather, let us betransformed by the knowledge of God “The fear of the Lordis the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holyis understanding” (Proverbs 9:10).

My dear friend, Mark Cahill, fearless defender of thefaith, reminds us of 1 Peter 4:14a: “If ye be reproached forthe name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of gloryand of God resteth upon you.”

And then Luke 6:22,23a:

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shallseparate you from their company, and shall reproach you,and cast out your name as evil, for the son of man’s sake.Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your rewardis great in heaven....

Let us boldly proclaim the Word of God and if we getrejected, let us leap for joy! For the Spirit of glory and of Godwill rest upon us and great will be our reward in heaven! Hey,my brothers and sisters, when is the last time you got rejectedfor proclaiming the name and creation works of Jesus. Wereyou leaping for joy or sad and dejected? Rejection for Jesus’sake brings glory and joy.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARTEven the artwork typically used to depict creatures

gradually evolving from monkey-likeness to man is


74 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 269.

questionable. Those National Geographic-type pictures ofapes gradually becoming more and more human until youfinally see the man on the street (usually with an ape-likehaircut and a beard) are called anthropological art.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of artists’ conceptions arebased more on imagination, than evidence.... Much of thereconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing aboutthe fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must createsomething between an ape and a human being: the older aspecimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it....Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.

The guesswork approach often leads to errors.75

How did the above words get into an evolutionarymagazine like Science Digest (now defunct)? Those NationalGeographic pictures of “evolving” man are “artists’conceptions,” “imagination,” and “guesswork.” When is thelast time you saw a bone with hair on it? Or how do the artistsknow what kind of ears or lips to put on skull fragments oreven whole skulls? Have you ever seen a bone with a lip onit? As Science Digest confesses, it is the artists’“imagination.” This is not science!

Every bone or bone particle discovered so far has beenclassified, by one evolution expert or another, as ape, monkey,or man—not ape-man or man-ape. The evolutionists do notagree with each other as to which fossils prove to be evolvingman. It is nice, though, that for the most part, they do notstraddle the fence. One researcher’s human ancestor isanother researcher’s orangutan or pygmy chimp. Theresearchers courageously (and it is courageously) publishtheir differences while maintaining unwavering faith that anunbroken chain of evidence (proving they evolved from someprimate) will one day be found.


75 Author unknown, “Anthropological Art,” Science Digest, 89 No. 3 (April1981), p. 44.

IS A MONKEY ALMOST A MAN?There are other facts to be considered when attempting to

prove that man had ape-like evolutionary ancestors. J. W.Klotz lists a few of the important differences between manand the primates.76 I have edited Dr. Klotz’s list of 31 majordifferences down to the ten most outstanding in my opinion.If man evolved from the primates, then everything in the rightcolumn (characteristics of primates) would have to somehowevolve into the characteristics of man in the left column.

MAN PRIMATE

1. Permanent bipedal locomotion 1. Walks on all fours2. Great toe in line with other toes 2. Great toe like a thumb3. Brain larger 3. Brain smaller4. Head balanced on top of the 4. Head hinged in front of

spinal column spinal column5. Less mature at birth 5. More mature at birth6. More vertebrae 6. Less vertebrae7. Shorter arms 7. Longer arms8. Longer legs 8. Shorter legs9. One type hand 9. Another type hand

10. 46 chromosomes 10. 48 chromosomes

There are real, basic differences between man and theprimates. Let us examine three.

THE GREAT TOEWhat would it take to evolve a great toe like that on the

foot of a primate into a great toe like one on the foot of a man?This digit on a primate is located and functions like a thumb.With its thumb-like great toe, it can grab onto a tree limb.

And yet the great toe of man comes out the front of hisfoot in a line with his other toes. In reality, there is no animal


76 J. W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1972), pp. 332-336.

in the supposed evolutionary family of man with a great toepositioned somewhere between man’s “out the front” andprimate’s “more toward the rear and out the side.” There areno living animals and no fossil animals that have yet beenfound that display a great toe migrating toward the front of thefoot. Surely “survival of the fittest” would ensnare anddestroy any primate that lost its ability to grab limbs with its“evolving higher” great toe! It would quickly become extinctand would not evolve on up in the “evolutionary chain” toman. Perhaps this is why no fossils have been found of amigrating great toe—any mutation in that direction goteliminated in one generation.

HEAD PLACEMENTThe placement of the head is also quite significant. A

human head is balanced on top of the spinal column tofacilitate walking and running in the upright, two-leggedposition. Where is the evidence that the primates somehowmanaged to move their heads from being hinged in front ofthe spinal column (for ease of function on all fours) to the topof the spinal column as in humans? How could a creaturefunction, whose head was placed halfway between theprimate and man? Obviously, the “survival of the fittest”would catch up with it also. It would probably become extinctin a single evolutionary moment.

BABY HUMANS ARE HELPLESSEvolution seems to be going in reverse as you look at the

ability of human babies to survive, compared to the primates.Human babies are totally helpless at birth and for monthsafterward. Baby apes are ready to run to safety or climb ontotheir mother’s back for a ride soon after birth. How wouldthose first human babies have survived? And, what is theprobability that the last set of ape-parents would give birth to


dizygotic twins (a male and female) which could not onlysurvive as the first non-ape human babies, but couldreproduce offspring (male and female) which could againreproduce and on and on? And, why do we still have so manyspecies of apes and monkeys, if they are evolving out ofsomething and into something else, perhaps even into people?Again, may I emphasize the fact that what we see over thespan of recorded history, in fossils and in real life today, arediscrete, identifiable animals, plants and people; notintermediate, transitional life forms.

A MASSIVE POPULATION PROBLEMIf, as evolutionists believe, monkey-like creatures evolved

into man about 1 million years ago (Lucy is said to be around2.8 million years old and some of the more recentlydiscovered “humanoid” or “hominid” bones are said to bemuch older than Lucy, possibly eliminating her from theevolutionists “tree of human life.”), we would anticipate amassive population problem. Dr. Henry Morris gives someinteresting figures in his book, Biblical Cosmology andModern Science, published in 1970. Assuming parents livedto the age of 35 and had four children, roughly 3 billionpeople would have been produced in just the first thousandyears! You might say, “Well, that is too many children.” Dr.Morris shows the figures for a family with three children,using the same condition as above. In roughly 2000 years, thepopulation of earth would have reached about 4½ billion.With 2.5 children per family and extending the length of ageneration to 43 years, in little more than 4 thousand years, 3billion people would populate the earth. To quote Dr. Morrisverbatim: “It begins to be glaringly evident that the humanrace cannot be very old!”77


77 Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Nutley, NewJersey: Craig Press, 1970), p. 75.

According to Dr. Morris, if the earth’s population startedwith two people 4,300 years ago, it would only have toincrease at the rate of 0.5% per year in order to reach thepopulation of the world of 1970. This 0.5% is significantlyless than the 1970 population growth rate of about 2% peryear. The farther back in history you go, the higher is thepercentage of growth. Less industrialized people have biggerfamilies on the average.

Dr. Morris states that the best secular estimate of worldpopulation at the time of Christ is 200,000,000 people. Using2.75 children per family, plus a 40-year generation andstarting with two people in 2340 B.C., there would have beenabout 210 million people alive in A.D. 1. These figures wouldfit the Biblical time frame nicely.

POPULATION, DISEASE AND WARSBringing into consideration the effects of disease and

wars on population growth, Dr. Morris says:

But what about the possibility that the great plagues andwars of the past may have served to keep the population fromgrowing at the indicated rates? Could the population haveremained static for long ages and only in modern times havestarted to expand?

We are unable to answer these questions dogmatically, ofcourse, since population data are unavailable for earlier times....

Furthermore, there is really no evidence that the growth ofpopulation has been retarded by wars or disease epidemics. Thepast century, which has experienced the greatest mushrooming ofpopulations, has also witnessed the most destructive wars in allhistory, as well as the worst plagues and famines.78

Dr. Morris singles out the Jewish people as a goodexample of the accuracy of his population estimates. TheJewish people had no homeland for many years. They


78 Ibid., p. 76.

suffered persecution and the holocaust. Morris states that ifthe average Jewish family had 2.4 children and a 43-yeargeneration, after 3,700 years (beginning about the time of thepatriarch, Jacob) there should have been 13,900,000 Jewishpeople alive by 1970.79 The God of the Bible in Genesis 46:27says: “And all the souls of the house of Jacob, which cameinto Egypt, were three score and ten.” That is a total of 70family members who came down to live in Egypt. But about400 years later, at the Exodus, several million descendantscrossed the Red Sea on dry ground! Without birth control,abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, populations grow rapidlyand exponentially.

Man could not possibly have been here as man for even1,000,000 years. Using Morris’ figures, 1,000,000 years isover 28,600 generations, which would put the worldpopulation of 1970 at 10 to the 5,000th power! That is enoughpeople to fill the entire universe, and we are not including ratsand rabbits. As Dr. Morris said,

It begins to be glaringly evident that the human race cannot bevery old! ...the assumption of the evolutionists that man firstappeared a million or more years ago becomes completely absurdwhen examined in the light of population statistics.80

If man has been recognizable as man for 30 million years,15 million years or even 500,000 years, there should behundreds of billions of fossils scattered in huge piles all overthe earth! Where is fossil man? Let’s face it—man has notbeen and cannot have been on earth for very much longer thana few thousand years! If studies of population statisticsdemand a short (few thousand years) history of man on earth,then evolution of man over thousands or millions of years ismost unlikely, if not totally impossible!


79 Ibid., p. 77.80 Ibid., pp. 75, 77.

PREHISTORIC MAN IS NOT PREHISTORICCould it be that “prehistoric” man was not “before

history” after all? Job may have been referring to the type ofpeople scientists call “cavemen” as he wrote:

But now they that are younger than I have me inderision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have setwith the dogs of my flock.

Yea, whereto might the strength of their hands profit me,in whom old age was perished?

For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into thewilderness in former time desolate and waste.

Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots fortheir meat.

They were driven forth from among men, (they criedafter them as after a thief;)

To dwell in the cliffs of the valleys, in caves of the earth,and in the rocks.

Among the bushes they brayed; under the nettles theywere gathered together.

They were children of fools, yea, children of base men:they were viler than the earth (Job 30:l-8).

Perhaps “cavemen” were cast-offs from the civilized societiesof their day. Possibly these were people given over to areprobate mind due to their habitual sin and decadence. In anyevent, they were not man’s ancestors. They lived concurrentlywith man.

The God of the Bible says He created man after His ownimage from the dust of the earth:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground,and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and manbecame a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

God formed man from dust, not from some prehistoric, ape-like, hominid creature or the primordial ooze. The dustbecame, by God’s creative design and power, a man; but the


man had no life until God breathed life into him. Genesis 2:7clearly shows that man’s emergence from some previousliving creature is not true. He came from non-living dust,which became, by God’s creative design and power, a man—a man that had no life until the living God breathed life intohim. This means that man could not have evolved from somemore primitive “LIVING” monkey-like creature. People werecreated by God in God’s own image.

Part of God’s image is our ability to think thoughts andmake decisions. Our brain does not originate thoughts.

If it did, we would have to do whatever our brains decided.On the contrary, we (the real persons inside) do the thinking anddeciding, and our brains take these non-physical thoughts andtranslate them into physical actions through a connectionbetween the spirit and body that science can’t fathom....

Science cannot escape the fact that man himself, like hisCreator, must be a nonmaterial being in order to originate thethoughts processed by the brain.81

There can be no compromise for the Christian as to theorigin of man. We did not come from monkey-like creatures,but through the indescribable, unfathomable, supernaturalpower of the God of the Bible. He created us in His image,“unto good works, which God hath before ordained thatwe should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLEGod placed man, the pinnacle of His creation, in a special

environment of delicately balanced systems. Scientists arenow calling this balance of ecosystems (that support the lifeof man) the “Anthropic Principle.” For our lives to bemaintained, we must have exactly the correct amounts ofoxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sunlight, magnetic field,


81 Dave Hunt, “The Living Word of God,” The Berean Call, P.O. Box 7019,Bend, Oregon 97708, January 2001.

speed of rotation and revolution of earth, distance from themoon, distance from the sun, ozone, water, gravity, etc., etc.,etc. All of these factors must be in the correct amounts, in theright places, at the right times, and in exact relationships witheach other.

For instance, if our earth’s gravity were weaker, ouratmosphere would thin out and would be unable to supportlife. If gravity were stronger, undesirable gases, such asammonia gas, would be held in higher concentrations andwould be detrimental to life. That means our earth has to havebeen made exactly the right size to generate the perfectamount of gravity to support our atmosphere.

But the earth also had to be the right size to hold our moonin orbit—that means the moon had to be made the right sizeso it wouldn’t drift off into space or crash into earth—and themoon also had to be the right size so that the ocean tides stayunder control. That means there had to be just the rightamount of water in the oceans to harmonize with the size ofthe moon to establish the tidal patterns. Of course, the earthand moon must be in a precise relationship not only with eachother but also with our sun, and the size of all three does notleave space for error. How many chance events would have tooccur to make all these conditions (and many billions more)just EXACTLY right for man to live on this planet? Thisrequires a lot of faith. We could go on and on with this, butthe fact is, the evolution model as an explanation for thisincredible universe, so carefully designed with man in mind,is grossly lacking! God, the God of the Bible, is to be praised.He, alone, is to receive the glory and the honor. “It is a goodthing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praisesunto thy name, O most High” (Psalm 92:1).


The heavens declare the glory of God;and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.

Day unto day uttereth speech,and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language,where their voice is not heard.

Their line is gone out through all the earth,and their words to the end of the world.In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

His going forth is from the end of the heaven,and his circuit unto the ends of it:and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening theeyes.

The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever:the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold:sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Moreover by them is thy servant warned:and in keeping of them there is great reward.

Who can understand his errors?cleanse thou me from secret faults.

Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins;let them not have dominion over me; then shall I beupright, and I shall be innocent from the greattransgression.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and myredeemer (Psalm 19).




#5

The Giraffe

Let us look at another of the marvels of God’s creation—the giraffe. The giraffe had to be created as a fully functionaland unique animal.82 A mature bull giraffe stands at about 18feet tall. In order to pump blood up his long, skinny neck tohis brain, the giraffe needs a powerful pump. His heart(pump) can be up to 2½ feet long. It is so powerful that, as theanimal bends its head down to satisfy its thirst, the bloodpressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of itsbrain.

If evolution is true, then the giraffe is back to mindless,totally random accidental chance processes, occurring overlong periods of time, to save its life and prevent it fromblowing its brains out every time it bends its head down to geta drink of water. This evolution idea comes up short! Isevolution a progressive and miraculously intelligent processthat, without a shred of intelligence, somehow realizes that animprovement or adaptation is needed and then sets out todesign and manufacture the incredibly complex organicstructure? And if the complex improvement does not show upin time, the animal is dead and extinct.

Even the extinct fossil animals have all the necessaryparts to exist; they do not display a partially formed skeleton

82 Bob Devine, God in Creation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), pp. 35-37. Thisbooklet shows how ten different animals (including the giraffe) and plants demand aCreator by their special features.

131

or fin or beak, etc. All fossil and living forms are fullyfunctional and perfectly suited for their niche.

When might the giraffe know it needed to protect its brainfrom the devastation of excessive blood pressure? It seems tome that it would not know until it had died of a brainhemorrhage while taking a cool drink. How can it “evolve” aprotective mechanism, if it is no longer alive to do it?

The giraffe has a protective mechanism that was designedby our Creator. As the bull bends his head down for a drink,valves in the arteries in its neck begin to close. Blood beyondthe last valve continues moving toward the brain. But insteadof passing at high speed and pressing into the brain anddamaging or destroying it, that last pump is shunted under thebrain into a group of vessels similar to a sponge. This clusterof blood vessels is called the “rete mirabile.” The brain ispreserved as the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gentlyexpands this “sponge” beneath it.

However, from this mechanism another problem arises. Alion creeps up and prepares to kill its spotted prey. The giraffequickly raises its head and, without something to compensatefor the reduced blood flow, passes out. It got up too fast,generating low blood pressure and diminished oxygen contentin the brain. The lion eats a hearty meal, and the giraffe, wereit alive, would realize that it had better evolve somemechanism to re-oxygenate its oxygen-deprived brain! We allknow that animals that have been eaten by a lion don’t evolveanything, even though evolutionists would have us believethat creatures evolve the necessary-for-life improvements, asthey are needed for survival.

But the giraffe survives! The Creator designed it in such away that as he begins to raise his head, the arterial valvesopen. The “sponge” squeezes its oxygenated blood into thebrain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves,which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the


giraffe can quickly be erect and running without passing outand becoming lion lunch. God made the giraffe just like it iswith all systems complete and ready for any emergency.There is no way the giraffe could have evolved its specialfeatures slowly and gradually over long periods of time asevolution demands. The functional mechanisms of the giraffedemand God to be their Creator. Why not God as the Creatorof everything?

Everyone agrees, creationists and evolutionists—a giraffeis a giraffe. It is a distinct species, a discrete entity. No onewould say a giraffe is a “missing link” or a “transitionalform.” A giraffe is not some creature emerging from someother creature or changing into a “higher” or more complexanimal—a giraffe is a giraffe! It can be scientificallyexamined with results that display the necessity of a singlecreative act. This long-necked creature had to have beenoriginally formed with all of its complex features fullyfunctional.

Every living organism must be fully functional andperfectly designed for its place in nature or it ceases to exist.Hearts, lungs, intestines, kidneys, brains, blood vessels, nervepathways, eyes, skin, hair, feathers, scales, teeth, tongues,antlers, horns, reproduction abilities, etc., etc., etc., must allbe in place and functioning in harmony or the life form dies!The same is true of cars. They must be designed and producedin such a way that the water pump, carburetor, fuel lines,battery, transmission, ignition switch, etc., are each workingproperly and in harmony with everything else or the car doesnot run. Everything must be there and be working from thebeginning!

Someone might interject that the giraffe is a product of“survival of the fittest.” Let’s think about this survival of thefittest idea. Does it support evolution or does it fit creation?Suppose there were two bull giraffes and one female giraffe.

The Giraffe 133

The first bull giraffe is a happy, healthy, 100% bull giraffe.The second bull is evolving out of giraffe-hood so he is notquite fully and completely a giraffe anymore. These two bullsare going to fight, as animals do, to see which one gets thefemale giraffe. Which bull do you think is the fittest and willwin the fight? Obviously the most giraffe-ish giraffe willproudly win the battle and the affection of the female.Survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive. This ideabetter fits the Biblical teaching that each life form is createdaccording to its kind. The strongest of its kind survives.

The giraffe is a giraffe and it testifies to the existence ofits Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ! Have you thought muchabout the sheer genius of our Creator Lord Jesus? He startedwith nothing—no patterns or examples—and just thoughteverything up and everything works! Think of the amazingdiversity of plants and animals, not to mention insects thatlook like nothing else. There is no conceivable possibility forintermediate or transitional forms. He has set apart so manydifferent forms of living things with unbridgeable gaps and atotal impossibility of interrelatedness. From snakes, birds,bugs and orchids in all colors, shapes and sizes to fish, catsand giraffes, the unmatchable creative power of the LordJesus Christ completely overwhelms the idea of mindless,purposeless, accidental, non-directed chance evolution!


6THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

AND THE DAYS OF THECREATION WEEK

In 1971, two students had the courage to politelychallenge one of their professors (me) to defend his

position on the origin of all things. That seemed to be a fairlyeasy job since I was convinced that huge volumes of factualscientific evidence proved evolution (over billions of years)to be true. By 1972, this professor’s stomach was churningwith frustration! The evidence for an old universe promotedas proven fact by evolutionists was nowhere to be found. Thisis not to say that there is lack of writing on the subject ofevolution, but that there is no true scientific evidence that isnot based on assumptions (refer back to the beginning ofChapter 2, Seven Basic Assumptions).

It was obvious to me back in the early 1970’s thatevolution needed long periods of time. Couldn’t those days ofGenesis 1 be a billion years each? If we could somehowimpose long periods of time onto the text of Genesis 1,evolution and the Bible quite nicely harmonize with eachother. Or so I thought.

24-HOUR DAYS OR AEONS OF TIME?Those days of Genesis are 24-hour days! If we believe the

Bible, they cannot be one billion years each. Even the logic in

135

the Ten Commandments demands 24-hour days [It wouldn’thurt any of us to review the Ten Commandments], so let’smake some observations from Exodus 20:1-20:

And God spake all these words, saying,I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of

the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any

likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in theearth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor servethem: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting theiniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third andfourth generation of them that hate me;

And showing mercy unto thousands of them that loveme, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God invain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh hisname in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:

in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thydaughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thycattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: whereforethe Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may belong upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.Thou shalt not commit adultery.Thou shalt not steal.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt

not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor hismaidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thyneighbour’s.


And all the people saw the thunderings, and thelightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountainsmoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, andstood afar off.

And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and wewill hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God iscome to prove you, and that his fear may be before yourfaces, that ye sin not.

Did you notice that man’s “workweek” is parallel toGod’s “workweek” (Exodus 20:9-11)? Thus, if man works six24-hour days, then the logic of Exodus 20:11 requires thatGod worked six 24-hour days and rested during the seventhday as man is to rest one day a week. The idea here is that Godworked the same kind of days that man works. I realize thatworkdays sometimes feel like they are one billion years long,but we all know that they are not.

An interesting fact of history that might be appropriate toinsert here is this: The French, during the French Revolution,attempted to become an atheistic society. They tried to geteverything that had to do with the Bible out of French culture,so they went to a ten-day week. Are the French still practicinga ten-day week? Absolutely not! It does not work. There areastronomical events that differentiate days from months andmonths from years (sunrise and sunset, full moons, spring,summer, fall and winter), but only God’s Word and HisCreation-week-example point us to the seven-day week.

Hebrew scholars universally agree that the days (theHebrew word “yom”) of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. Thesescholars may not necessarily believe that God has the abilityto create everything in six normal days, or they may not evenbelieve that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, but they dobelieve the Hebrew word, yom, means 24-hour day.

Liberal scholars have tried to claim that some primitivewriter, who had no knowledge of science and geology, wrote

Ten Commandments/Creation Week 137

down a brief account of the origin of man in overly simplisticterms. Many scholars say that it does not matter what thewords say, but simply that it is the meaning or the messagebehind these “word-symbols” that is important. However, ifthat is true, then we might as well throw out the Hebrew andGreek lexicons (dictionaries). Every word in Genesis 1 is inthe Hebrew lexicon. Every word has a definite meaning andwe can look up what that meaning is. It is not some nebulous“word-symbol” that is limited in meaning only by the extentof the imagination of the reader. Today, on the universitycampuses, this method of madness is called PostmodernDeconstructionism. Naturally, if the true meaning of words isup to you or your professor, then the meaning of the Bible isnonsense.

More than ninety-eight percent of the time that yom (day)is used in the Old Testament (over 2,500 times), it means 24-hour day or the daylight part of a standard day. The rest of thetime it refers to such things as the “Day of the Lord,” whichscholars argue could be anywhere from a 24-hour day to1,000 plus years to eternity. The fact is that Genesis 1 usesyom with clarifiers such as day one, day two, etc. Everywhereelse in the Bible that yom is used with clarifiers (numbersone, two, three, etc.) it unquestionably indicates a 24-hourday.

EACH DAY IS HALF LIGHTAND HALF DARK

God used every word He possibly could to show us He isreferring to one rotation of the earth in front of its source oflight (or one revolution of the light source around planet earthwhich is called Geocentricity). These are 24-hour “yoms” inGenesis 1. He literally says, “...There was evening and therewas morning, day one; ...there was evening and there wasmorning, day two,” etc. Each day had an evening and each


day had a morning. In Genesis l:5, God says, “And Godcalled the light Day and the darkness he called Night. Andthe evening and the morning were the first day.”

Notice that each day was part light and part darkness. Thiseliminates theistic evolution and day-age theories, since eachday (one billion years?) would be half light and half dark!You cannot evolve anything in 500 million years of darknessor, for that matter, in 500 million-year stretches of unrelentingsunlight.

We might ask, “How old was Adam when he died?”Genesis 5:5 reads: “And all the days that Adam lived werenine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” If one singleGenesis 1 day equals one billion years, as theistic evolutiondemands, and Adam lived through at least half of day six, allof day seven and 930 more years, then how old was Adamwhen he died? Was he, let’s say, 1 billion 500 million 930years old? Or did he die at the age of 930? You can’t haveboth! You can’t have long periods of time (day-age, theisticevolution, progressive creation) and the Bible. Either Adamwas 930 years old when he died, or you can throw out Genesis1:1 through 5:5!!

DAYS, YEARS AND SEASONSGod had words that He could have used if He had wanted

us to understand those days of Genesis, Chapter 1, to belonger than 24 hours. One of these Hebrew words is “olam.”Olam means a long period of time and can even meaneverlasting. God put all the necessary words into the Hebrewtext to make it unmistakably clear to the reader—these are 24-hour days.

Look at Genesis 1:14:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of theheaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be forsigns, and for seasons, and for days, and years.


God here differentiates between days and seasons and years.How can anyone stretch a Genesis 1 day into a billion yearsand then make any sense at all of Genesis 1:14? If a day is abillion years, then how long is a season or a year? Is a Biblicalyear 365 billion years? Even the most radical evolutionistsclaim the universe is not much older than twenty billionyears! God lines up all these time words for us in one verse toprove that He means 24-hour days. You can’t make any senseat all of Genesis 1:14, if you insist on the theistic evolution orday-age or progressive creation views. (Don’t forget—we donot subject the Bible to science, we subject science to theBible.) If “science” tells us we must have long geologic agesto explain the existence of all things, but the Bible says Goddid it all in six normal days, then we must believe the Bibleby faith and know that evolutionary science has some moreresearch to do in its faith system to catch up with the Bible.

The Ten Commandments in the Bible may be one of theroot causes for belief in the evolution model. Scientificallycredentialed people closely examine God’s creation. Whatthey see is the handiwork of God (Romans 1 and Psalm 19),but they nevertheless choose to believe the lie of evolutionbecause they do not want to acknowledge their sin, asrecorded in the Ten Commandments. To accept belief in God,who wrote those Ten Commandments with His own finger,becomes unthinkable. Belief would place man in a position ofsubmission and obedience to his Creator, which would neverbe his choice without the penetrating grace of God.

Furthermore, this position of submission and obediencedemands responsibility before this holy God and ultimately,the certainty of judgment—realities that people do not like tothink about. We know we are sinners. We cannot even live upto our own standards; let alone, God’s righteous standards. Itis easier to live in the fantasyland of evolution than in realitywhen we are separated from our Creator by our own


unholiness and pride. Life appears to be less complicated andmore comfortable as we believe the lie of evolution. “Thefool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

No rational person would argue that God’s TenCommandments are invalid or inaccurate or harmful tosociety. If everyone obeyed them, we would have a near-perfect, crime-free and pollution-free world.

Did you notice that the seven-day creation week ismentioned in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11)? Is thisnot fascinating? In view of all the many things the Creatorcould have mentioned to be preserved forever, He chose, inthe midst of His Ten Commandments, to call attention to theoriginal seven-day week of creation.

The English translation of the Ten Commandments isaccurate. What we read is precisely what God said. He said,“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seaand all that in them is...” (Exodus 20:11). That meansexactly what it says. In a literal six days, the Lord madeeverything that exists, whether it exists in the heavens or onthe earth or in the seas. He made it functionally mature. Assome might say, it had the appearance of age. That wouldinclude the entirety of the macrouniverse (space, time, stars,planets, sun, moon, comets, asteroids, angels, etc.) and themicrouniverse (the molecules, atoms and quarks, ofelephants, beetles and sharks). A six-day creation leaves noroom at all for theistic evolution and its billions of years, orfor a “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There was noheaven, earth or sea before the first day of the original seven-day creation week. Only the Trinitarian God of the Bibleexisted before the first day of that week!

THE “GAP”Some of the early twentieth century Bible scholars came

to believe in a “gap theory” due to the influence of


evolutionary “science.” These godly men believed thatscience had established great geologic ages and “prehistoric”man to be a proven fact. They went to the early chapters ofGenesis and attempted to subject the Bible to science bypostulating a “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. But the sun,stars, heat, light, atmosphere and universe were not yetcreated. No life existed nor could it exist in the supposed“gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

There was no “pre-Adamic” race of wicked people livingin the “gap.” Not only could they have not existed withoutlight, but sin and wickedness, decay and death did not enterthe universe until the fall of Adam.

Romans 5:12 teaches:

Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world,and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for thatall have sinned.

Before the Fall, everything in God’s creation was verygood. “And God saw everything that he had made, and,behold, it was very good. And the evening and themorning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). Could “verygood” from our holy God’s perspective include a history ofdeath, suffering and decay in the supposed pre-Adamic fossilrecord before sin and death entered through Adam’s sin? I donot think so. And furthermore, what could God possibly betalking about in Acts 3:18-21 where He states that Jesus willcome back to earth to restore all things for times ofrefreshing? The idea seems to be in Acts that the curse will beremoved and an “Edenic” earth will result. If there has alwaysbeen death, decay and suffering on earth, even before the Fallof Adam, then how could we possibly gain any kind ofunderstanding of Acts 3? Jesus comes back to restore earth toits original pre-Adamic sin death and decay? Not likely!


A sobering result of Adam’s sin was death, but beforeAdam’s sin there was no death. If there were no death beforeAdam (the very clear statement of God’s word), then it wouldbe impossible to have “pre-Adamic” people dying.

Actually, the entire creation was affected by Adam’s sinand it still “groans” with thorns, thistles and entropy as itawaits its redemption. Romans 8:22-23 states:

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travailethin pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselvesalso, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even weourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, towit, the redemption of our body.

FOSSIL THORNS IN OLD ROCK LAYERSAs a little aside, did you know that thorns are present in

some of the oldest sedimentary rock layers? If you hold to atheistic evolution or progressive creation model (old earth)you have a problem here! If thorns are a result of the Fall, andthe Fall happened about 6,000 years ago, how can thorns bein rock layers that evolutionists believe are millions of yearsolder than man’s appearance on earth? Resulting fromAdam’s sin God said, “...cursed is the ground for thy sake;in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee...”(Genesis 3:17b-18a). Thorns came into existence afterAdam’s sin! So what worldview glasses do you have on? Didthorns come into existence about 6,000 years ago as the Bibleteaches, or millions of years ago as evolution teaches?

SOME “GAP” PROBLEMSHolding to the “gap” position (millions of years between

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) not only demands death beforethe Fall, but it also forces changes in the Biblical text. Genesis1:2 must be changed from “And the earth was without form


and void” to “and the earth became without form and void.”God uses the very same word for “was” in Genesis 2:25 and3:1. Genesis 2:25 says, “And they were both naked….”Adam and Eve were not created with clothes and then“became” naked.

The same can be said for the serpent in 3:1. It is not thathe “became” subtle (crafty, NASB) after not being subtle; hewas crafty from the beginning. The Gap theory necessitateschanges in other Biblical texts also. For a comprehensivestudy of problems with the Gap theory please read Dr. JohnWhitcomb’s book, The Early Earth: Revised Edition and Dr.Weston W. Fields’ book, Unformed and Unfilled.

We do not need to accommodate Scripture to what wemight believe to be factual science—the geological ages—byimposing a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or by stretchingthe 24-hour days of Genesis 1 into long ages of geologic time.Men, who have done this most probably in all innocence,violate a basic rule: The Bible must never be subjected toscience, but theoretical “science” must always besubjected to the Bible.

My position, quite frankly, is of one who committed hislife to the Lord Jesus Christ later in life than most (age 27)and who endured a gut-wrenching five-year struggle with thisissue. When I came to faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord andSavior, I became a theistic evolutionist. I then later saw, asmany men and women have seen (when exposed to the truetruth of the Bible), the total “rightness” and reality of God’ssix-day creation that occurred about 6,000 years ago. The truescience I studied showed the incredible complexity of everyplant, animal and insect. And yet, there was no satisfactoryanswer to the “why” and “how” of this complexity anddiversity—except to say, “all that ‘is’ results from mindless,purposeless, impersonal, totally random and accidentalchance processes plus time.” If any causative factor was


mentioned, it was always “Mother Nature” did it, but neverthe personal Creator/Redeemer God of the Bible.

Our God, the Almighty Creator, does not need time. He isabove time. The Creator, the Lord Jesus, displayed Hissupernatural ability to act without time restraints through Hismiracles. When we believe Genesis 1 as it is written, we bowin worship and in submissive trust of our awesome, infiniteCreator. As Job said:

I know that Thou canst do every thing, and that no thoughtcan be withholden from thee. I have heard of thee by thehearing of the ear: but now my eye seeth thee. Wherefore Iabhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes (Job 42:2,5,6).

Earlier, we mentioned (Scott Huse, The Collapse ofEvolution, and Walter Brown, In the Beginning) thedocumentation showing that the details of evolution and thespecifics of Genesis 1 do not match up. For example,evolution says reptiles developed first and then birds evolvedout of reptiles, but the Bible says birds came first (Genesis1:20-23) and then reptiles (Genesis 1:24-26). If we again goback to thinking about the days of Genesis, then certain thingsare not logical when we hold to long periods of time. Forexample, God made plants on the third day (Genesis 1:12,13), but He created insects on the sixth day. Many plants needinsects to pollinate them. How could they survive more thantwo billion years, while waiting for insects to “evolve?”

Evolutionary theory does not have satisfactory answersfor how we got here. Evolution forces us to throw out theclearly written and easily understood words of Genesis 1-11,since the two are not compatible. Do we believe the Bible orhave we placed our trust in the foolish speculations of men,based on the foundation of the scientifically unprovableassumptions of so-called science (see the beginning ofChapter 2, Seven Basic Assumptions)?


Since origins are scientifically unverifiable for eitherevolution or creation, then we are dealing with “faith.” Nohuman was there to verify if the “Big Bang” happened. Noperson was there to witness God creating out of nothing.

VIRGIN BIRTH AND RESURRECTIONMany of us easily profess to believe in Jesus Christ as the

virgin-born Son of the one true God and in His resurrectionfrom the dead. We Christians believe in the virgin birth of theLord Jesus, don’t we? If we do not believe in the virgin birthof the Lord Jesus we are not going to go to Heaven becausethere would not be a holy and sinless Savior! Where do welearn of virgin birth? We learn of it in God’s written Word.

...the virgin’s name was Mary.... And the angel said unto her,“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And,behold, Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth ason, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:27b, 30-31).

Does modern science tell us that we can lock up a virginand she will emerge pregnant nine months later and ready togive birth to a baby? Absolutely not! Science says that virginbirth does not happen in humans. We Christians believe invirgin birth by faith because the Bible says so, even thoughthis idea is totally contrary to scientific data.

We Christians also believe in the resurrection of the dead.Do any science textbooks teach that humans can be graveyarddead, and then resurrected back to life? Do you know anyevolutionary scientists who would permit you to kill themtombstone dead because they knew that they could recruittheir fellow Ph.D.’s three days from now to resurrect themback from the dead? Of course not! Well then, where do weget this idea of resurrection? We get it from the written Wordof God, the Bible. The Bible states categorically, that withoutresurrection and our belief in it, we will not go to Heaven.


That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, andshalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from thedead, thou shalt be saved (Romans 10:9).

...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; andthat he was buried, and that he rose again the third dayaccording to the scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas,then of the twelve, after that, he was seen of about fivehundred brethren at once; ... (I Corinthians 15:3b-6a).

Hell and the Lake of Fire await us if we do not believe inthe virgin birth of the Lord Jesus, and in His, and ultimatelyour, resurrection. The primary evidence we have forresurrection and virgin birth is the Holy Bible, the writtenWord of God, with no supporting evidence at all from science.As a matter of fact, modern science speaks out loudly againstthe ideas of virgin birth and resurrection from the dead inhumans. In spite of “evolutionary science,” we believe whatthe Bible says. We believe by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7).

But then we get to the early chapters of Genesis, they arealso the written Word of God, and we believe the old earth,local flood evolutionists instead of the clear teaching of theBible. Not that we really need it, but there is plenty ofexperimentally verifiable science to support a global floodand a young earth (see Chapter 9). Why do we Christiansaccept the Biblical ideas of virgin birth and resurrection,which go against known “science,” but we do not accept thebiblical teaching on the age of the earth (around six thousandyears, not 16 billion years) or the flood of the days of Noah(global, not local), when much true science is in support of theBible? Perhaps we love the approval of men more than theapproval of God.

For they love the praise of men more than the praise of God(John 12:43).


How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, andseek not the honor that cometh from God only (John 5:44)?

...I will not give my glory unto another (Isaiah 48:11b).

We accept the Truth regarding virgin birth andresurrection without flinching, but we limit God to a “Trialand Error” entity not capable of “speaking the Creation intoexistence,” but rather relying on billions of years and anevolutionary process to finally “get it right.”

It is my contention that the main reason for rejecting acreationist view (especially in light of the statements byevolutionists which give the creationist position credence) ismankind’s basic pride and rebellion. Evolution allows us to beindependent of God so that we do not feel any accountabilityto God. Evolution takes some pressure off our conscience!Our existence is explained without the need for God.

The current, pervasive New Age teaching that, “we eachhave within ourselves the god consciousness and can achievegodhood by our own strength as we learn to look withinourselves and develop our full potential,” further fans theflames of self-sufficiency, selfishness and independence fromany power greater than ourselves. This New Age teachingpromotes evolution and is deadly deception. It is the way ofdeath. It leads people to reject the Lord Jesus Christ as theirpersonal Savior. New Age evolutionary thinking alsoconvinces people that they cannot believe the first elevenchapters of Genesis to be the literal Word of God. Truly,“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but theend thereof are the ways of death” (Prov.14:12).

FLOOD WATERS COVERED THE EARTHIncluded early in Genesis is the account of Noah and the

Flood. If evolution were true, then a global flood taking placeabout 4,500 years ago would be impossible! Evolution


demands millions of years, not just a few thousand, forcreatures and ecosystems to evolve. We sometimes hear thishistorical event referred to as the Flood of Noah. It was notNoah’s flood. It was God’s flood! The Flood was God’sjudgment on the sin that had spread to cover the earth.Genesis 6:5-14a describes God’s heartbreak at the sinfulnessof mankind and His recognition of Noah as the only righteousman on the face of the earth.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great inthe earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of hisheart was only evil continually.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on theearth, and it grieved him in his heart.

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I havecreated from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, andthe creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repentethme that I have made them.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man,

and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth

was filled with violence.And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was

corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh is come before

me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and,behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood....

THE DESTRUCTIONOF ALL LAND-BASED FLESH

What has God told us was His purpose in sending a globalflood? Genesis 6:5 records that God saw the great wickednessand evil in mankind. Genesis 6:17 states the actual purpose of


the Flood: “... to destroy all flesh.” The types of life to bedestroyed are more specifically listed in Genesis 7:21-23:

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both offowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that wasin the dry land, died.

And every living substance was destroyed which wasupon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and thecreeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they weredestroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, andthey that were with him in the ark.

The purpose of this great judgment by water was to destroyall dry-land life. Dry-land life extended well beyond theTigris and Euphrates valley! The Flood was not designed todestroy marine life, although many water creatures weredestroyed by the Flood as is seen in the fossil record.

Peter tells us (2 Peter 3:5-13) that there are three heaven-and-earth systems in God’s eternal plan. The first system wastotally destroyed by the water of the Flood, which was thejudgment of God in Noah’s day. Remember it was theviolence (Gen. 6:11) that moved God to judgment! (What isthe content of the movies and cartoons that you and yourfamily are watching? Have you noticed the astronomicalincreases in violence?)

The second heaven-and-earth system (our present system,2 Peter 3:7) will be destroyed by fire so hot as to destroy eventhe foundational molecules of the earth and sky (2 Peter 3:10).The root of sin, wickedness and violence will finally beburned out of existence. So, how are you investing yourresources (time, treasure, talents)? Only three things will notbe burned up—God; God’s Word (the Bible); and people. Areyou investing eternally in God’s Word and people?


The third heaven-and-earth system is called the NewHeavens and New Earth (2 Peter 3:13). This eternal, righteousheaven-and-earth system is also referred to in Romans 8:21,Revelation 21:1 and perhaps Isaiah 65:17. It will last forever.Only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book ofLife will inherit the New Heavens and New Earth. Have youcome to the sacrificial Lamb, the Creator Jesus, in faithrepenting of (willfully turning away from) your sin andrebellion and believing that He alone has the power and rightto save your soul? Have you committed the rest of your life tothe Lord Jesus Christ and to His service? Are you justified?

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with Godthrough our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1).

THE DAYS OF NOAH ANDTHE SECOND COMING OF JESUS

The Lord Jesus contrasted the days of Noah and the floodjudgment to His Second Coming:

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in thedays of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, theymarried wives, they were given in marriage, until the daythat Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, anddestroyed them all (Luke 17:26, 27).

The Flood is treated in the Bible as an actual event. Noahis not some mythical character. The Lord Jesus and writers ofthe Bible believed and taught about a literal man named Noahand an actual global flood. Nowhere in the Bible is the Floodcharacterized as a local river overflow as some scholars havehypothesized. The words of Genesis 6-9 have concretemeanings in the Hebrew lexicons. These words are notphenomenonological symbols depicting a mythological eventrecorded by some primitive scribe whose concept of theworld was limited to the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris


Rivers. This flood covered “...all the high hills that wereunder the whole heaven...” (Genesis 7:19, Emphasis added).

THE ARK OF NOAHWould God move Noah to build an ark 437 feet long, 73

feet wide and 44 feet deep for a local river overflow? The arkwas big enough to carry, on one deck, all the kinds of dry landanimals needed to repopulate the earth. Scientists haveestimated that Noah would have to take a maximum of about35,000 sheep-sized animals on the ark to give us all the kindsof creatures we have today. [A comprehensive study of allaspects surrounding the ark and Flood is: Noah’s Ark: AFeasibility Study by John Woodmorappe (Santee, CA:Institute for Creation Research), 1996.]

The ark was big enough to carry at least 125,000 sheep-sized animals. 35,000 creatures (the largest number I’ve seento generate the animals we have today) could have been kepton one of the three floors in the ark. Since God brought theanimals to Noah, He probably brought young animals, evenbaby dinosaurs. (Please do not forget that the largest dinosaureggs yet found are no larger than a football. So the largestdinosaurs started life no bigger than a football.) Youngdinosaurs would eat less and take up less space. Noah and hisfamily could have lived on the top deck, and, I wouldimagine, he maintained the insects on the bottom deck. Ofcourse, Noah may not have needed to take insects on the ark,as they may have been able to survive on floating debris.

Would you need an ark to save birds during a local riveroverflow? Have you ever heard of a local river overflow thatlasted longer than a year? The Genesis flood did.83 Whywould God give Noah 120 years to build the ark (Genesis 6:3


83 For much more information about the Flood-judgment of God read: TheGenesis Flood by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian& Reformed Pub. Co., 1961).

seems to imply that God was giving 120 years for people torepent while Noah built the ark), when it would have beenmuch easier to move his family and flocks out of theMesopotamian Valley? In 120 years, Noah could have movedquite a distance away from a flood if it was just a local riveroverflow! Dr. John Morris has an excellent video on this verysubject called, The Deluge, filmed on location at Mt. Ararat inTurkey. It is produced by I.C.R., P.O. Box 2667 El Cajon, CA92021, (619) 448-0900.

Could God have taken care of Noah, his family, and thatark-load of creatures for a whole year? Genesis 8:1 begins bysaying, “And God remembered Noah, and every livingthing, and all the cattle that was with him….” That word“remembered” (zakar) is a special word. In the text of theHebrew language, it has the idea of intimate care andwatchfulness. The concept of knowing needs and acting onthat knowledge is contained in the word. It was not that Noahwas stranded in the ark and God had been busy doing otherthings. Then God suddenly looked down and said, “Oh, my!I just remembered Noah.” This word carries with it theconcept of meeting needs.

Some creationists have suggested that the process ofhibernation may have begun during the Flood. Perhaps manyanimals slept through most of the ride. Numerous animals thatdo not normally hibernate or estivate (hot weather sleeping)can be made to do so in certain laboratory conditions. Theability to hibernate is displayed by such animals as: bats,skunks, woodchucks, prairie dogs, badgers, bears, certainmice, humming birds, garter snakes, turtles, toads, spiders,beetles, dragonflies, grasshoppers, garden snails, etc. It is notimpossible to believe that some (if not many) animals slept agood part of that year.

Many Bible “scoffers” refer to Noah and the Ark as just amyth or story and not an actual historical event. This could be,


in part, because of the seeming impossibility of so few peoplecaring for that large a number of animals. Hibernation andestivation of the animals and insects would definitely havedecreased the time demands for feeding (and scooping) by theeight human ark passengers. Also, many Sunday Schoolbooklets display pictures of Noah’s ark with giraffes’ headspoking out of the top and other animals looking like they hadto be squeezed in. Anti-creationist teachers and professorsknow these erroneous pictures exist in Christian literature andthey use those images which have already been planted inchildren’s minds to convince our children that there is no wayNoah could get all those animals in that little ark!

No one can say exactly what went on in the huge, sealedark, but God knew, and cared, and saw to it that the remnantof His creatures survived.

THE ALTAR, THE RAINBOWAND THE DRUNKENNESS

Remember what happened when Noah came out of theark? Three major things come to mind: the altar, the rainbowand the drunkenness. After his departure from the ark, thefirst recorded event in the life of Noah was his worship. Hebuilt an altar to the Lord and worshipped His Savior. Genesis8:20-21:

And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took ofevery clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burntofferings on the altar.

And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord saidin his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more forman’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil fromhis youth; neither will I again smite any more every thingliving, as I have done.

As a result, God gave Noah the covenantal promise of therainbow. Was the rainbow God’s Covenantal sign to man that


He would never again send a local river overflow? Absolutelynot! If it was a local river overflow in the known “world” ofthe writer’s day, then the rainbow as a covenantal sign meansnothing. There have been many local river overflows in theMiddle East since Noah’s day. And another thing—if therewas no water canopy before the Flood that came down duringthe Flood, then there must have been rain and floods andrainbows before the Flood. In that case, the rain and therainbow would have no special significance to Noah. Therainbow was a new experience for Noah. It meant that Godwould never again destroy life upon the earth with an all-encompassing flood.

The account of Noah’s drunkenness may also beimportant in the study of creationism. There may be severalreasons for the inclusion of this episode in God’s eternalWord. Noah’s drunkenness could very readily serve as a hintthat man is no longer living in heaven-and-earth system #1now that the Flood is over. The pre-Flood environmental andecological system (#1) was destroyed by the Flood. Thepresent heaven-and-earth system (#2) is different.

Reading certain selections from 2 Peter 3 presents to thereader God’s eternal plan, which includes three heaven-and-earth systems: The heaven and earth of Adam and Noah(system #1); the present heaven and earth (system #2); andthe New Heavens and New Earth of eternity (system #3).

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last daysscoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? forsince the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the wordof God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out ofthe water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed withwater, perished:


But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by thesame word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against theday of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth alsoand the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for newheavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2Peter, 3: 3-7,10,13).

It is probable that heaven-and-earth system #1 had aheavier atmosphere than our present system (#2). Theincreased atmospheric pressure was the result of God takingwater off the surface of the earth (see Genesis 1:6-8) andputting it above atmospheric heaven or, more specifically, theexpanse or firmament that the birds fly in (see Genesis 1:20).These “waters above” came down in Noah’s day and mayhave set up the condition that quite possibly caused Noah’sdrunkenness.

Because the water came down as rain, the atmosphericpressure was reduced by at least one half. Alcoholfermentation rates are doubled when the pressure is cut inhalf. Therefore, because alcohol ferments faster and gets intoyour blood and brain more quickly in system #2 than it did insystem #1, Noah likely was caught by surprise. He was God’srighteous man. He had not forgotten to make an altar andsacrifice in worship of his Lord and Savior. Noah probablymade the same amount of wine that he made before the flood.But now, in system #2, because the conditions had changed,Noah may have been caught by surprise and gotten drunk. Wehave no record that Noah ever got drunk before or after thisincident. Perhaps one reason our Creator gives us this sadaccount is to hint at the difference between system #1 andsystem #2.


Our present heaven and earth are vastly different than thepre-Flood heaven and earth of Noah’s day. That is the reasonwe do not have dragonflies with a wingspread of 32 inches, orchambered nautilus shells eight feet tall, or 100,000-pounddinosaurs walking the earth today. But we know they oncelived. We have their fossils. And yet, people lived in system#1 and are still thriving in system #2. Only God could havedesigned life to work efficiently in two significantly differentsystems. There is no one like Him!

Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thouart great, and thy name is great in might.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath establishedthe world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavensby his discretion.

The Lord of hosts is his name. (Jeremiah 10:6,12,16)




#6

The Angler Fish

One of God’s amazing creations is the deep-sea Anglerfish. This fish makes its home more than a mile deep in oceanwater. On her forehead the female has a “fishing rod” tippedwith an “artificial worm.” She dangles this “bait” over hermouth to attract her next meal. Ah, but there is a problem—her next meal cannot see the bait, since it is too dark undermore than a mile of seawater. Starvation sets in while shewaits for her first deep-sea fish dinner. At last, she realizes, “Imust do something about this darkness problem.” But, alas, itis too late. She is dead and dead fish can not evolve theadaptations needed to rectify deadly problems, even thoughevolution says that, given enough time, mindless, randomchance processes will evolve whatever her situation (orenvironment) tells her is needed to survive. It may not belogical to some, but it seems to me that she would get mightyhungry waiting perhaps hundreds of years for her first meal.

The only possibility is that God created the Angler fishwith all the fully-functional equipment it needed to survive atgreat depths. To solve the darkness problem, God created aspecial kind of light on the bait. This light displays highlyadvanced technology—it gives off no heat! A compoundcalled Luciferin is oxidized with the help of an enzyme thatscientists named Luciferase, and this reaction producesheatless light. (Research scientists have broken downLuciferase into more than 1,000 proteins, but they still do not

159

know how the heatless light is produced. Someone somedaymay figure out how God made this heatless light. Need I saythat they will join the ranks of the rich and famous?)

Ask an evolutionist how a deep-sea fish could evolve theability to produce high-tech light on an artificial bait dangledover the fish’s mouth? God has made His creation to displayHis glory and power. No one could look at the Angler fish andsay it is the result of the “impersonal plus time plus chance,”unless that person had already decided to refuse to believe inthe God of the Bible (Romans 1). The vain speculations ofmacroevolution lead to foolish thinking and impossibleconclusions.

Naturally, the Angler fish needs to reproduce and has aspecial way of doing this. In the darkness of the deep, it isdifficult for the male and female to find each other. Goddesigned the eggs of the female so that they float up througha mile of ocean to the surface. On the ocean surface, the eggsform a jellylike mass and then hatch. The young fish, maleand female, grow and mature in the surface waters. At acertain point in their development, the male finds a femaleand bites and holds on to her abdomen. Soon the tissues of thefemale grow into and attach to the mouth tissues of the male,and the female drops to the bottom of the ocean carrying herparasite male with her, not to separate “’til death do theypart.” He found her in the light of the surface waters, so hedoes not have to grope around in the dark of the deep lookingfor a mate. How could all of this evolve when it is so ultra-specialized and unique? Why does the female not chase themale away when he bites her abdomen? What possibleevolutionary mechanism enables the male’s circulatorysystem to merge with the female’s? And from what creaturedid this peculiar fish evolve? Evolution has no answers.

A major difference between the Angler fish and other fishis the Angler’s lack of a swim bladder, which is an air sac to


provide buoyancy and to prevent sinking. If it had evolvedwithout an air bladder, it would sink and die. If it had an airbladder and had evolved the bait and light in surface waters,it would be easy prey for other predators and “survival of thefittest” would force it into extinction.

Another feature of the deep sea Angler is its special body,which is designed to prevent crushing. A pressure of over2,000 pounds per square inch is exerted on the body of thefish at one mile deep. It survives this great pressure with noproblem. On the other hand, if the first Anglers were surfacefish and lost their air bladders, (through let’s say, someunexplainable genetic mutation) and then sank to the bottomof the sea, they would have been crushed. Dead animals don’tevolve any further.

Someone once asked what the purpose would be of thelighted bait on the Angler fish before the sin of Adam and thecurse on nature? The Lord Jesus made life forms with theability to exist in the pre- and post-Flood environments.Perhaps the lighted “bait” was used by the female to attract amale or to light up the rock surfaces so she could see herfavorite plant food. None of us were there before the Fall orbefore the Flood and those conditions are not reproducible.But we can trust the God of the Bible and His Word. Whenthe Lord Jesus says that things were different after the Flood,we believe Him, even if we can’t seem to figure out some ofthe particulars.

The deep-sea Angler had to have been created with all itsspecial equipment fully functional. God says that as we studyHis creation, it should cause our thoughts to focus on theCreator, give Him thanks, and honor Him as God (Rom 1).84

The Angler Fish 161

84 For a wonderful look at the Angler fish and other highly specialized animalsread: The Natural Limits to Biological Change by Lane P. Lester and Raymond G.Bohlin (Zondervan, 1984).

7EARTH’S PRE-FLOOD

WATER CANOPYAND THE DINOSAUR MYSTERY

Ican remember one particular lunch period sitting in myoffice at Baylor College of Dentistry studying Genesis

1. Those dental students had asked me to explain to themwhat God meant in verses 6-8a. How often we read the Biblebut don’t really think about what it says. As I studied theseverses, I realized that I didn’t know quite what they weresaying. Here is what the Bible says:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst ofthe waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waterswhich were under the firmament from the waters which wereabove the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven (Gen.1:6-8a).

It says God divided the waters and put some water above thefirmament (heaven, 1:8a) and left some water under thefirmament. What is this firmament? Genesis 1:20 reads:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly themoving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly abovethe earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The expanse or firmament of Genesis 1:7 may be the openheaven of Genesis 1:20 where the birds fly around. Now,

162

there are several views and different interpretations of theseGenesis verses, but the one that seems to make the most senseto me, and the one that I believe, is this: God separated thewaters that covered the earth in the beginning and left somewater on the earth and put some water up above the air wherethe birds fly.

EXPLAINING THE WATERS ABOVEBefore we go much farther, let us clarify the uses of the

Hebrew word that is translated as expanse or firmament orheaven. There are three different heavens that are mentionedin the Bible: 1) atmospheric heaven, 2) the heaven where thestars are (stellar heaven), and 3) the third heaven where Godlives (paradise). This third heaven is referred to in 2Corinthians.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago…such a onecaught up to the third heaven. …How that he was caught upinto paradise (2 Cor. 12:2b, 4a).

Psalm 19:1 calls our attention to both the atmospheric andstellar heavens:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmamentshoweth his handy work [Emphasis mine].

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF A WATER CANOPYWhat are some beneficial effects of this water canopy

above atmospheric heaven? If it were a water vapor canopy,there would be some protection from cosmic radiation, etc.But if it were liquid water, it would provide maximumprotection. This might help explain 900-year life spans beforethe Flood. Water filters out many of the harmful rays of thesun, which might speed up the aging process. For example,water blocks alpha and beta radiation penetration. Liquid

Pre-Flood Water Canopy/Dinosaur Mystery 163

water in combination with the ozone layer would block mostof the ultra violet radiations from the sunlight. Combine thiswith filtering of the alpha and beta radiation, and earth wouldhave been a much healthier place to live before the Flood!

Many creationists (myself included for many years)believed this water canopy could have been water vaporinstead of liquid water. Water vapor initially seemed to be amore logical way to keep the water suspended above theatmosphere. Creation scientists such as Drs. Larry Vardiman,Russell Humphrys, John Baumgardner, Michael Oard, etc.,have introduced problems with the water vapor canopy modeland may have eliminated it as a possibility. Liquid water turnsout to be a better explanation.85

Another advantage of the water canopy is the hyperbaric(increased pressure) effect. The weight of the water abovewould have increased atmospheric pressure on earth andperhaps even the oxygen content in the air. (As to increasedoxygen content, scientists have found little bubbles of air inancient amber, and the air bubbles had as much as 32%oxygen, whereas the air we breathe today in heaven and earthsystem #2 is about 20% oxygen.) The water canopy may havemore than doubled atmospheric pressure. In this environmentof heavier atmospheric pressure and higher oxygen, healingwould be more efficient. Many hospitals have pressurizedrooms called Hyperbaric Rooms. Into these rooms increasedoxygen content is pumped under pressure and healing ismiraculously speeded up. Very sick people and the severelyburned are treated in this high pressure and oxygen richenvironment.86


85 Read more of their ideas at www.ICR.org and www.answersingenesis.org 86 For more information about “Hyperbaric Therapy” see: J. C. Davis,

“Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy,” Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 4 (1989), 55-57.Also: Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine, ed. K. K. Jain (Toronto: Hogrefe and HuberPubs., 1990), p. 492. Also: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy: A Committee Report (UHMSPUB 30 CRHOB), ed. J. T. Mader (Bethesda: Undersea and Hyperbaric MedicalSociety, Inc., 1989), p. 90.

www.icr.org


God could have made the canopy exactly the rightthickness and distance from earth to enable plants to getenough light energy for their photosynthesis while blockingthe harmful radiation and the excessive heat. If the water ofthe canopy were in the form of liquid water (perhaps underthe ozone layer but above where the birds fly), it would havemade heaven-and-earth system #1 (before the Flood) similarto a giant terrarium. There would have been no rain! Andwhat does the Bible say? Genesis 2:6: “But there went up amist from the earth, and watered the whole face of theground.” That is the exact effect expected if a water canopysurrounded the earth: a morning mist would form. Genesis2:5b is more specific: “...for the Lord God had not causedit to rain upon the earth.” No rain, therefore no rainbow!Heaven-and-earth system #1 was obviously different fromour present system, system #2.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTWith a water canopy, a greenhouse effect would be

expected due to the heat generated by the sun-warmedcanopy. Is there any evidence that greenhouse warmth oncesurrounded our globe? Palm tree fossils have been found inAlaska and broad leaf ferns in the Arctic. How could a palmtree fossil be in Alaska? Some scientists have postulated theytraveled there on the tectonic plate (earth crust) movementover millions of years. But these trees are not millions ofyears old! A creationist would say, “No problem, palm treesgrew in Alaska in the tropical world before the Flood.” Thesetrees were buried during the Flood of Noah’s day resulting intheir fossilization. (It has recently been suggested that thesefossils traveled to Alaska on extremely rapid tectonic platemovement instead of slow movement. This writer still thinksthat they grew there.)


Scientists have found tropical forests and coal deposits inAntarctica. How did they get there if plants in past history didnot grow there? Fruit trees that were quick-frozen and overninety feet in height with green leaves have been found in theNew Siberian Islands where, today, only one-inch highwillows grow.87 In these frigid zones, many trees (somefossilized and some quick-frozen) have been found in floodsediments with rings, signifying rapid, warm temperaturegrowth. The Evolutionist asks, “How did they get here?” ACreationist might say, “They grew there before the Floodwhen the earth was pole to pole greenhouse warm.”

A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT?Of course, the idea of a water canopy will bring objections

from some scientists, even creationist scientists. Would therebe a problem of overheating causing a runaway green houseeffect? Some scientists believe that a water canopy of anykind would generate too much heat coming in to earth’satmosphere and not enough escaping, resulting in overheatingand death to all life on earth. Could our Creator have designedAdam’s world with a suspended water canopy (liquid, notvapor) that did not generate too much heat for life to exist?

If the water canopy was under the ozone layer [if it wasabove the ozone layer, this crucial protective barrier may havebeen destroyed when the water came down through the ozoneat the Flood, and, depending on how far into space the canopywas located, there may have been a vacuum above it whichwould permit the water to evaporate rapidly out into spaceand the canopy would disappear], the liquid water in thecanopy might actually be a heat and radiation shield. It wouldphysically block off some amount of heat. The heat energy


87 Charles Hapgood, “The Mystery of the Frozen Mammoths,” from BassettDigby, The Mammoth and Mammoth Hunting Grounds in Northeast Siberia (N.Y.:Appleton, 1926), pp. 150-151.

during the daylight part of the day could be absorbed as thewater on the outer surface of the canopy evaporated. Thewater could then re-condense during the coolness of the night.Because of the ozone layer above the water canopy, theevaporated water would not escape into outer space.

This canopy model would actually function like a giant“heat pump” air conditioning and heating unit. In the summer,the heat in the house is picked up by the refrigerant andcarried outside. The house stays cool. In the winter, the heatin the air outside the house is picked up and brought inside.The house stays warm. Water picks up heat slowly andreleases heat slowly. That is why the sea breeze during themiddle of a hot summer day is still cool while the inlandbreeze is terribly hot and vice versa during the coolernighttime. The daylight side of the earth would be warm andthe dark side cool. The differences in temperature between thetwo sides would balance each other out.

Even today, water in the sky (clouds) moderates thetemperature here on earth. On an overcast spring day, thecloud cover can regulate the air temperature from varying by15-20 degrees between daylight and nighttime to as little as a2 degree difference. For example, Cleveland, Ohio, in Aprilof 1999, had a temperature high of 70 degrees and on thesame day, a low of 68 degrees as compared with 75 degreesfor a high and 55 degrees for a low on clear day and night.There was only a 2-degree difference in a 24-hour periodbecause of the cloud cover. The sun was still up there heatingthe top of those clouds, but under the clouds the temperatureremained quite stable!

Water can absorb great amounts of heat. In the steel millswater is used to cool molten steel. One kilogram of water cancool down several kilograms of molten steel by 1,000degrees. In the dental lab, water is used to cool and tempermolten metals because it is so efficient at absorbing heat.


Our creator placed the earth and the sun in just the rightrelationship to each other (distance and size) and quitepossibly with a water canopy above that part of theatmosphere where the birds fly, but below the ozone layer.Considering all the factors that we just discussed, we canconclude that over heating should not be a reason for us toreject the water canopy idea. This is a matter of faith. Wecannot duplicate it or make it happen today, but we canbelieve God when he says he put water up above where birdsfly. Just because current science cannot explain all theramifications of a water canopy is no reason for us to say thecanopy never existed.

THE GREAT DINOSAUR MYSTERYEvolution has a problem called The Great Dinosaur

Mystery. Where did the great dinosaurs come from? How didthey grow so big? If it is “survival of the fittest,” why didthese powerful creatures become extinct?

A creationist would answer, “no problem.” God createdthe giant reptiles and may have referred to one or two of themthat existed in Job’s day (see Job 40:15-41:34). In the pre-Flood, high efficiency atmosphere, reptiles could have grownto immense sizes, giant flying creatures could have flownmore easily, and gigantism would have been much morelikely.88

Reptiles do not have a built-in, growth-inhibiting factorlike other animals and man. The dinosaurs would havecontinued growing as long as they lived. The older they got,the bigger they grew. God created large reptiles. Reptilesfunction best (cold-blooded animals) in warm temperatureclimates. These reptiles kept growing in an efficient high-


88 Most of my comments about the effects of the water canopy came from Dr.Joseph Dillow’s discussion of the effects of the vapor canopy in The Water’s Above:Earth’s Pre-Flood Water Vapor Canopy (Moody Press, 1982).

pressure atmosphere with plenty of warmth, with unlimitedsupplies of lush vegetation to eat, and with nothing to eatthem. The Bible says,

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, whereinthere is life, I have given every green herb for meat (Genesis1:30).

This indicates that all animals ate plants, not flesh, beforethe Flood. Of course, the Flood was after the Fall, and someanimals may have eaten flesh because of sin or perhaps somewere scavengers. But, God did not give His permission formeat eating until after the Flood (Genesis 9:1-5).

Plants themselves are a testimony to God’s creativegenius. They start as a seed. They take dirt, water, air andsunshine and are converted into roses, rubber and rhubarb!And these incredible factories not only do not pollute theenvironment, but they silently clean the air and replenish itwith life-supporting oxygen. Oh, the wonders of the God ofall creation!

MEAT-EATING AFTER THE FLOODIt was only after the Flood that God gave permission to eat

flesh. “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat foryou; even as the green herb have I given you all things”(Genesis 9:3). Nothing ate the dinosaurs before the Flood, andthey had bounteous vegetation as food. They, therefore, couldgrow to great size during a long lifetime of hundreds of years.Even Tyrannosaurus rex ate plants, not other dinosaurs,before the Flood. The textbook pictures of this great dinosaureating another reptile are not based on scientific method andare not supported with factual information. Tyrannosaurusmost probably was a vegetarian (at least before the Flood,Genesis 1:29, 30) and used his long sharp teeth to strip leaves


from plants. After the Flood, with the change in atmosphericpressure, these reptiles could never again grow so huge. Thelighter atmosphere (the weighty canopy came down as rainwater at the Flood), cooler average temperature, and predatorswould prevent long life and excessive size.

WARM BLOODED DINOSAURS?In recent years, some evolutionists have postulated that

dinosaurs were warm-blooded, not cold-blooded creatures.Warm-blooded dinosaurs have been proposed becausescientists are beginning to realize that 100,000-pound cold-blooded creatures do not and could not exist in ourenvironment. There is not enough air pressure to enable theirblood to circulate properly. Somehow an important fact hasescaped the notice of these evolutionists (or they are“willingly ignorant,” 2 Peter 3:5). The fact is these hugereptiles would have had no problem thriving in the warm,high-pressure atmosphere of system #1. The big ones wentinto extinction after the Great Flood. It is not politicallycorrect for an evolutionist to believe that the universal Floodof Noah’s day actually happened. Belief in the Flood isgrounds for dismissal from your job or cancellation of yourgrants. So, the evolutionist is left to speculate regarding “TheGreat Dinosaur Mystery,” whereas the creationist has a valid,scientifically testable position—the environmentaldifferences between system #1 and system #2.

Evolutionists may have theorized that warm-bloodeddinosaurs would solve their dilemma, but recent researchindicates that the giant reptiles were cold-blooded as are allreptiles to this day. The Dallas Morning News, March 21,1994, p. 9-D, reported that three University of Pennsylvaniapaleontologists have published their view (in Naturemagazine) that “...dinosaurs...were probably cold-blooded....”This is a blow to the evolutionist’s dream of solving the


mystery of these huge creatures! Of course, if you wait a fewdays some other evolutionary scientists will refute hiscolleagues’ position. Evolutionists keep batting this “warm-blooded” or “cold-blooded” idea back and forth. The DallasMorning News, July 11, 1994, p. 7-D, published a review byscience reporter, Matt Crenson, of a July 1994 Naturemagazine article. The review is partially quoted here:

Tyrannosaurus rex had a stable body temperature, a newstudy shows, suggesting that the largest terrestrial carnivore waswarm-blooded.

Reese E. Barrick and William J. Showers of North CarolinaState University in Raleigh studied Tyrannosaurus bonesuncovered in the rocks of the Hell Creek Formation in easternMontana...

The remarkable consistency of the oxygen isotopes in thedinosaur’s bones demonstrate that its body temperature nevervaried by more than about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, the NorthCarolina researchers wrote last week in Nature. If Montana’sseasons were anywhere near as variable 70 million years ago,when Tyrannosaurus lived, as they are today, a creature with sucha stable body temperature would have had to be warm-blooded.

A creationist might say that a stable body temperature ina giant cold-blooded reptile is consistent with the creationistview that the earth’s temperature was uniformly warm in thetropical pre-Flood heaven and earth system number one.Creationists would expect to find “...remarkable consistencyof the oxygen isotopes in the dinosaur’s bones....” Apparentlythese evolutionistic researchers would rather pretend thatcold-blooded reptiles were actually warm-blooded than toconsider the pre-Flood pole-to-pole greenhouse warmcondition of earth (6,000 years ago, not 70 million years ago)as presented by this creationist model.

By the way, did you know that there never was an actualdinosaur called Brontosaurus? Brontosaurus fooled thescientific community for many, many years. It turned out to


be the head of one creature and the body of another. Theevolutionary community was too embarrassed to admit thismistake for more than fifty years. Brontosaurus does notappear in many new textbooks. (See The Dallas MorningNews, October 11, 1979, p. 44a.)

The giant flying reptiles such as the pterosaurs(pterodactyls and pteranodons) would be unable to fly in ourpresent atmosphere. They needed a heavier atmosphere to getenough air to lift them with their 40 to 50-foot wingspans.Heaven-and-earth system #1 would have provided the heavieratmospheric pressure necessary for the flight of these hugecreatures. Evolutionists say we don’t know how these giantreptiles could have flown in our atmosphere. To a creationist,this is not a problem. Heaven-and-earth system #1, before thewater canopy came down at the Flood of Noah’s day, wouldhave provided the air density needed for these huge creaturesto fly.

In order to protect their jobs, the evolutionists dare noteven suggest the global Flood of Noah’s day as part of thesolution to their problems, and yet the Flood supplies theexplanation for what we “see.” We even read in our olderhistory books about many ancient cultures that taught a globalflood.

GIGANTISMGigantism was common in the heavy pre-flood

atmosphere. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wingspan havebeen discovered and would be a frightful bug to hit yourwindshield! The hornless rhinoceros grew to about“...seventeen feet high and nearly thirty feet long!”89 Giantsabre-toothed tigers, mastodons and woolly mammothsroamed the earth side-by-side with the great dinosaurs.


89 Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, pp. 28,29.

MAN AND DINOSAUR COEXIST?Man lived during the age of the dinosaurs. In cretaceous

rock strata of the Paluxy River bottom near Glen Rose, Texas,human and dinosaur footprints have been found crisscrossingeach other. Much has been said about these footprintsbecause, if authentic, they prove in solid rock that man anddinosaur lived at the same time. If accepted as genuine, thesefootprints deal a fatal blow to evolution. They are proof thatevolution is a false speculation of man! Most textbooks claimthat the dinosaurs became extinct about 60 or 70 million yearsbefore man stepped onto the scene and into his footprints.Dinosaur and human footprints crisscrossing each other in thesame rock strata destroys the evolutionary belief that over aperiod of millions of years, man evolved from his ancientreptilian ancestors!

Two Texas scientists have sectioned (cut into slices ofrock) one of these human footprints. Carl Baugh and DonPatton discovered that the rock under the footprints showspressure structures (called laminations). These pressurestructures are exactly what a scientist would expect to findsurrounding a human footprint! The human prints (and thereare many) are not “carved” into the riverbed and neither arethe dinosaur prints.90

In the summer of 1993, Drs. Patton and Baugh noticedeleven and one-half inch long human footprints (people havefeet that big today) stepping along—left, right, left, right—inside giant three-toed dinosaur prints. Someone was walkingin the soft mud of fresh dinosaur tracks! One of the tracksshows in rock the human footprint beside the dinosaur track.Apparently the person got “side-tracked” and missed one


90 For more information about Glen Rose and the human footprints, contact: Dr.Don R. Patton at the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science, Inc. (MIOS), P.O. Box550953, Dallas, TX 75355-0953 and Dr. Carl E. Baugh at the Creation EvidencesMuseum and Archaeological Excavations, P.O. Box 309, Glen Rose, Texas 76043(817) 897-3200.

dinosaur print, but got back “on track” for his next step. Thesefootprints are conclusive, hard, observable evidence that manand dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously. For a while,The Humanist magazine had discredited these Paluxy Riverfootprints to the extent that creationists withdrew their articlesand films (a good film documenting the footprints is entitledFootprints in Stone). The summer of 1993 work by Drs.Baugh and Patton should put the shoe back on the other foot!Contact Dr. Don Patton90 for the incredible account of howseveral of the footprints (but not all) were destroyed by anoverly threatened evolutionist attempting to “...suppress thetruth….”

Proverbs 14:12 tells us that, “There is a way whichseemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are theways of death.” Evolutionists travel to Glen Rose, Texas, andexamine the human and dinosaur footprints side-by-side oroverlapped with each other in cretaceous rock. They thenconcoct foolish speculations, rather than bow their knees andheads before their Creator who told us all that dinosaurs andhumans existed together on the sixth day of the creation week.The Bible teaches that man and dinosaur shared the sameearth at the same time (Genesis 1). This presents no difficultysince those giant creatures ate only plants before the Flood! Inthe early days of His creation, God prevented animals fromeating each other or man, since He purposed to fill the earthwith His creatures.

Another evidence to support the fact that people anddinosaurs lived at the same time in history is the cavepaintings of dinosaurs. How could a “pre-historic” man orwoman paint a picture of a dinosaur if he or she had neverseen one? The Institute for Creation Research (www.ICR.org)and Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org)circulate excellent videos documenting the cave drawings ofdinosaurs.


www.icr.org


LONGEVITY OF LIFEAnother result of the water being above the firmament in

which the birds fly would be the shielding effect from cosmicradiation. Scientists have studied how much solar radiation isfiltered by water. Dr. Joseph Dillow reports their conclusionsin his book, The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood WaterVapor Canopy. In heaven-and-earth system #1, people couldlive to be very old. Some scientists believe that one of theprimary aging factors is solar radiation. By filtering out theharmful radiation (as a water canopy would do), humansmight be able to live close to 1,000 years.

The Bible reports that Adam died at 930 years of age andthat Methuselah lived almost 1,000 years. After the Flood, theages of people dropped off drastically to an average of 70 to80 years. A lot of people think that you cannot believe theBible when it says people lived to be 800 or 900 years old—that it must be a different kind of year or the writer did notknow quite what he was talking about. Isaac Asimov, for one,said Adam did not personally live 930 years, but that his tribelived that long.

Those old ages are 360-day years just like the Bible says(compare Genesis 7:11 and 8:3,4).91 You can believe the Bibleas it is written. Some present-day researchers who studylongevity of life believe that humans could live that longagain if we were sheltered from the harmful effects of the sunand the now polluted air (plus eliminate most of ourmutations and disorders).

Solar shielding by the water canopy above the atmospherewhere the birds fly would also affect dating techniques.


91 In Genesis 7:11, the flood began on the seventeenth day of the second monthand in the seventh month on the seventeenth day (five months later) as recorded inGenesis 8:4, the ark rested on Ararat. According to Genesis 8:3, these five monthsincluded 150 days — 150 days divided by five months = 30 days in a month; 30 daysx 12 months = 360 days in an Old Testament year.

Negligible amounts (or none at all) of carbon 14 (C14) wouldhave formed before the Flood.92

This pre-Flood water canopy can also explain one of thesources of water for the Flood. The water that God separatedfrom the water on the surface of the earth when he said “letthere be a firmament in the midst of the waters” on day twoof the creation week, rained down providing some of theFlood waters (Genesis 1:6-8).

THE COLLAPSEOF THE WATER CANOPY

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights(Genesis 7:12).

Either during or shortly after the canopy collapse (andFlood), a sudden and permanent temperature drop wouldoccur on earth. The climate would change from being pole-to-pole greenhouse warm (heaven-and-earth system #1) tohaving frozen ice caps and moderate temperature (heaven-and-earth system #2). But what might have caused the watercanopy to come down as rain? Several theories exist,although, of course, God does not need a naturalistic cause.He could just sovereignly command the rains of the Flood topour down by His omnipotent power. It is possible that therewas a physical mechanism that caused this liquid watercanopy to disintegrate and come down as rain. For example,a cataclysmic number of simultaneous volcanic eruptionscaused by the fracture of the earth’s crust could be one suchforce. One proposed idea for the precipitation of the rain isthat a meteorite slammed into the earth, shooting great cloudsof dust up into the water. The dust particles would provide the


92 The Institute for Creation Research is most helpful and has several differentpublications dealing with dating techniques. Every family should subscribe to theI.C.R. monthly newsletter, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 (619) 448-0900.

nuclei of condensation for the raindrops and would cause thecanopy to come down. Along with this idea is the suggestionthat the earth tipped 23½ degrees off dead center during thismeteor’s impact, resulting in frozen ice caps and the fourseasons.

Another theory holds that a large number of volcanoeserupted simultaneously around the earth, and the volcanicdust provided the particles for the condensation of the vaporinto rain. Perhaps all of these cataclysmic events werehappening at the same time—the meteor hit the earth,fracturing the earth’s crust, which in turn gave birth tomultiple volcanoes.

If there was volcanic activity at the time of the Flood, thenvolcanic ash would be expected in deep, old ice and frozenmuck. In the antarctic93 and arctic, the oldest ice and muck issaturated with volcanic ash. The creationist position holdswater. In 1893, just one volcano, Krakatau,94 lowered theaverage global temperature five degrees for a year. Dust fromKrakatau shot 30 miles up into the atmosphere and a series oftidal waves washed across the seas with the greatest being120 feet high. This incredible wave pushed several milesinland on Java and Sumatra.

If the dust from one volcano (Krakatau) could lower thetemperature of the earth for an entire year, what might be thechaos and cataclysm of hundreds of volcanoes eruptingsimultaneously? Could it be that the Bible is describingvolcanic activity when it tells us that on the seventeenth dayof the second month: “...the same day were all the fountainsof the great deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)? This was thefirst day of a sudden and permanent temperature drop, theeffects of which are in evidence to this day.


93 See Anthony Gow, “Glaciological Investigations in Antarctica,” AntarcticJournal of U.S., Vol. 7 No. 4 (1972), 100-101.

94 Cheryl Simon, “Krakatau 1893: The Shock Felt ‘Round the World’,” ScienceNews, 124 (May 1983), 138.

Science News (July 6, 1991, Vol. 140, #1, p. 7) headlines:

VOLCANO COULD COOL CLIMATE, REDUCE OZONE

The article states: “The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo could chillthe Earth slightly for the next few years and hasten thedestruction of the ozone layer over large portions of theworld, say scientists” (p. 7). Scientific literature refers to the“Ring of Fire.” Several thousand years ago, volcanoeserupted simultaneously all around the world. What causedthis cataclysmic ring of fire? Could this have been the“seventeenth day of the second month?”

QUICK FROZEN ANIMALSEvolutionary science has no answer for the existence of

many quick-frozen animals found in various places aroundthe globe. Among these frozen animals are rhinoceros, hyena,oxen, sabre-toothed tigers, hippopotamus, bison, donkeys,leopards, ibex and giant woolly mammoths. What is a quick-frozen rhinoceros doing in Siberia? Is it that he was on a littlesummer vacation and before he could get back to Africa, gotcaught in a freezing blizzard? No, there were tropical animalsliving in Siberia before the Flood of Noah’s day! The earthwas pole-to-pole greenhouse warm under the water canopy.This presents an immense problem for evolutionists. [Exceptfor ones that claim the frozen carcasses traveled there by rapidtectonic plate movement from more tropical climates. Thismight transport them there, but how did they get quick-frozenin the tropics?]

What happened back then to quick-freeze tropical plantsand animals in Siberia? None of these frozen “fossil” animalsare transitional-form animals. All of these very ancientanimals are discrete entities. They are instantly and easilyclassified as bison or mammoths. “Well,” say evolutionists,


“It must have been a slowly creeping ice age that caught up tothese animals.”

The frozen animal remains do not represent a slowlycreeping ice age. They were caught and permanently frozen(they are still frozen today) with such incredible speed thatundigested plants remained in their mouths and in theirstomach’s digestive juices. Giant wooly mammoths havebeen discovered with undigested buttercups in their mouthsand in their stomachs, which are still identifiable as to genusand species of the plant (see Dillow, footnote #88)!

What would it take to quick-freeze a happy, healthymammoth grazing on buttercups (and several hundred otheridentifiable plants, which no longer grow in the frigid climatewhere the frozen mammoths are found)? Some scientists wentto a major food-freezing company and posed this question.The answer does not fit into the known realities of heaven-and-earth system #2 (our present system).

To quick-freeze a huge, warm-blooded animal (munchingon buttercups), it would take a temperature of -175ºF (thecoldest temperature ever recorded on earth is near -128ºF) anda wind-chill factor caused by a 200-400 mph wind over a timeframe of about four hours (eight hours at the outside limit).The problem is that there is nothing on earth that approachesthese conditions that are necessary to freeze the animals—andyet the animals are frozen. To preserve the meat andundigested plants, drastic conditions not known on ourpresent earth would have been necessary for the quick-freeze.

The freezing of these ancient plants and animals was notcaused by a slowly creeping ice age. Many textbooks willshow an artist’s imaginary picture of a mammoth standing ina blizzard with a slowly creeping glacier moving up frombehind. This is imagination, not reality. The mammoths werewarm-temperature animals, eating warm-temperature plants


in a warm-temperature climate that suddenly, in a matter ofhours, became permanently frozen.

M. L. Ryder documents another interesting fact aboutmammoths:

The scarcity of hair in the modern elephant is associatedwith a corrugation of the epidermis, and a lack of skin glands.Although the mammoth, too,...lacked glands, the increase of thehair was associated with a loss of the epidermal corrugation....

Sections cut parallel to the skin surface revealed sparse,round, non-medullated hairs with no glands or erector muscles.95

Mammoth skin has been dissected and, to the surprise ofevolutionists, it contains no sebaceous (oil) glands. Whyshould this be a surprise? Because cold temperature animalshave a plentiful supply of oil glands to oil their hair and fur.Wolves, polar bears and seals have such oily fur that the frigidnorthern water rolls off and does not penetrate to the skin.

Cold temperature animals need a lot of oil to protect themfrom the wet cold. A mammoth could not last very long in afrigid climate without oil in its hair. It was a warm-temperature animal, eating warm-temperature plants, whichwas caught suddenly and frozen quickly and permanently inthe distant past. Evolution provides no answer for this! Aslowly creeping ice age is not a sufficient explanation for thequick-frozen animals—but a cataclysm, such as would haveresulted with the collapse of the water canopy and thecataclysmic release of the fountains of the deep at the Floodof Noah’s day, provides the answer and the evidence.

An animal with no oil glands in its skin cannot survive ina frigid climate. But an animal with oil glands can survive infrigid or tropical climates. Leopards have oil glands and cansurvive in tropical climates. Yet, their pelts have been used to


95 M. L. Ryder, “Hair of the Mammoth,” Nature, 249 (May 10, 1974), pp. 190,191.

make fur coats that are quite warm in winter. Polar bearssurvive in zoos in the intense summer heat of southern states.

These mammoths (and many other animals) were frozenso quickly that their meat can still be eaten.

In many instances, as is well known, entire carcasses of themammoth have been found thus buried, with the hair, skin andflesh as fresh as in frozen New Zealand sheep in the hold of asteamer. And sleigh dogs as well as Yakuts themselves, haveoften made a hearty meal of mammoth flesh thousands of yearsold.96

This sudden and permanent temperature change frompole-to-pole greenhouse warm to the present perma-frost orpermanent ice condition at and near the poles could havehappened during the collapse of the water canopy at theFlood-judgment of God in the days of Noah. When the earth’scrust fractured, massive volcanism would have occurred,accompanied with intense plumes of steam (See the writingsof Dr. John Baumgardner at ICR and AIG). The plumes ofsteam would have been shooting up into the canopy andbreaking through in places.

The first penetrations of the water canopy, whether bysteam or volcanic activity, would have generated an effectsimilar to the puncturing of an air conditioner’s Freon line.Instant freezing! The break-up of the canopy could havepermitted heat to rapidly escape our atmosphere. Thisproduced the frozen poles that have preserved for us animaland plant life (now extinct), which existed in heaven-and-earth system #1. Evolution has no good answer for the suddendeath of the frozen animals. The Bible would lead me tobelieve these things happened around the time of the Flooddestruction of heaven and earth system #1 (See: 2 Peter 3).


96 G. Richard Lydekker, “Mammoth Ivory,” Smithsonian Reports (1899), p. 363,as reported by Dr. Joseph Dillow, The Waters Above, p. 312. (See footnote #88.)

Bless the Lord, O my soul.O Lord my God, thou art very great;Thou art clothed with honour and majesty….Who laid the foundations of the earth,That it should not be removed for ever.Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:The waters stood above the mountains.At thy rebuke they fled;At the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.They go up by the mountains;They go down by the valleys unto the place which thou

hast founded for them.Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;That they turn not again to cover the earth

(Psalm 104:1, 5-9).

Michael Oard believes that the frozen animals and plantswere entombed in the years following the Flood. The seaswould have been warmer after the cracking of the earth’scrust during the Flood. Evaporation from the warmer oceanswould have caused huge temperature differences at the poles.This in turn would bring on mighty blizzards and the iceage.97

WHERE DID ALL THE WATER GO?This naturally raises another question: where did all the

canopy water go after the Flood? The answer is in Psalm104:8,9 as quoted above. After the Flood, the water from thecanopy was contained in the deep ocean valleys that sankdown and the under ground aquifers that remain to this day.Does that mean there was less water and more shallow season the surface of the earth before the Flood? Yes, that seemsto be the indication.


97 For more in depth information read: Michael J. Oard, An Ice Age Caused bythe Genesis Flood (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research), 1990.

OBJECTIONS TO A WATER CANOPYSome creationists object to the idea of a water canopy

surrounding planet earth before the Great Flood. They look atpresent phenomena and the current laws of physics andcannot imagine how a water canopy could remain suspendedabove our atmosphere. There are many things in God’screation that either have not been or cannot be explained byknown scientific laws!

There is the ‘Colossians 1:17 Principle.’ This verse reads,“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist(“hold together,” NASB).” Scientists, today, refer to theColossians Principle to explain some phenomena in science.One such phenomenon is the positive charge of the protonsnot repelling each other in the tightly packed nucleus of theatom, and then the negatively charged electrons not crashinginto the positively charged nucleus. You may have heardsome scientists explain the same phenomenon by saying thereare ‘gluons’ that hold the protons together and keep themfrom flying apart. Even if there are gluons to hold the protonstogether (the gluon idea is hypothetical) we are still left withthe problem of electrons with their minus charge not plunginginto the positively charged nucleus. So, if the liquid watercanopy were in place today, we would all observe it and thescientists would find a way to explain it just like they do theproton/electron problem. They might call it the Colossians1:17 principle or maybe they would coin a new term like‘canopy principle’ or ‘firmament principle’ or ‘raquiaprinciple’ in their attempt to help us understand what isholding the water up there (raquia is the Hebrew word forfirmament or expanse).98


98 For more information concerning objections to a water vapor canopy, look upthe writings of Larry Vardiman at the www.ICR.org or www.answersingenesis.org webpages. Vardiman discusses the heat problem and potential runaway greenhouse effectof a water vapor canopy.]

www.icr.org


There are several geological and physical explanations forthe cause of the Flood based on a creationist’s view. Any oneview or parts of all of the views could be true—they matchwhat we observe (science is based on observation), but myfavorite is in the Bible: “I even I do cause a Flood.” God didit! Truly He is the great “I am that I am!” (Exodus 3:14).

THE RAINBOW: SIGN OF THE COVENANTThe rainbow was the perfect object for God to use as the

sign of His covenantal promise of no more global floods.Remember, while the canopy was still in place, the birds wereflying in the expanse under this water, there were no rainbowsand one must be able to see through the water (hence notperpetual clouds). The sun, moon and many stars were visibleto Adam and to Noah, in view of the fact that Genesis 1:14states that they would serve as signs. After the collapse, Godsignifies something new.

And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shallall flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neithershall there anymore be a flood to destroy the earth.

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which Imake between me and you and every living creature that iswith you, for perpetual generations:

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a tokenof a covenant between me and the earth.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over theearth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

And I will remember my covenant, which is between meand you and every living creature of all flesh; and the watersshall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look uponit, that I may remember the everlasting covenant betweenGod and every living creature of all flesh that is upon theearth.

And God said unto Noah, This is the token of thecovenant, which I have established between me and all fleshthat is upon the earth (Genesis 9:11-17).


Noah had never seen a rainbow in the clouds before theFlood, because it had never rained. If there was no canopybefore the Flood, Noah would have experienced the sameweather patterns that we have today. He would have alreadyseen rainbows; therefore, the rainbow in the clouds wouldhave been neither special nor new to Noah. After the Flood,when the canopy had collapsed during the forty days andnights of rain, Noah was in heaven-and-earth system #2, andwas therefore experiencing our weather, rain and rainbows.He also would experience the difference between pre-floodsystem #1’s heavy atmospheric pressure and system #2’spost-flood lighter atmospheric pressure—the latter causingmore rapid fermentation of alcohol and quite possibly thereason for Noah’s drunkenness.

RED ALERT!The Bible gives us a warning in Colossians 2:8:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vaindeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of theworld, and not after Christ.

We must constantly be asking ourselves, “What does theBible say?” (one of Ken Ham’s favorite questions). Macro-evolution is a philosophical system and an empty deception.99


99 When we depart from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ (2 Cor.11:3), we accept empty deceptions. Many Christians have departed from Biblical Truthto believe in Darwinian evolution or in Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution did nothappen too slow to see, it happened too fast to see). Stephen Jay Gould and NilesEldredge promote “Punctuated Equilibria” as the mode of evolution [See: “PunctuatedEquilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,” Paleobiology, 3 (Spring1977)]. The punctuated equilibria model (evolution is too fast to see) has been aroundfor a long time, even though Gould seems to accept praise as the “father” of it.Punctuated equilibria is foundational to Marxist-Leninism and was seen by Marx andLenin as essential to move people away from Biblical Truth into the vain philosophyand empty deception of Marxist-Leninism. For excellent documentation of this andGould’s roots as a Marxist, read: The Long War Against God by Dr. Henry Morris(Baker Book House, 1989), and Understanding the Times by Dr. David Noebel(Summit Ministries, Box 207, Manitou Springs, Colorado 80829, 1991).

Christians should not be taken captive by the speculativephilosophy of macroevolution—there is no factual science(science not based on assumptions, see Dr. Kerkut’sassumptions in Chapter 2) to support the molecules-to-life-to-man model of origins. Yes, evolutionists present their theoriesas fact. They fill our textbooks with their interpretation of thehistory of the universe (which leaves God out). But instudying origins (where we came from), we must keep inmind that both evolution and creation are faith systems.

We must get away from thinking of evolution (molecules-to-man, ed.) as a science. It’s a philosophical world-view about thepast, loaded with religious implications, which historically andpresently exists in a frantic attempt to explain...that we are herewithout a Creator/God. It results in bad science, a denial of truehistory, and much misery to people and nations who haveadopted it.100

Have we allowed ourselves to be brainwashed intobelieving that scientific facts prove evolution of molecules-to-man to be true? No one but God was there when theuniverse and life appeared. Let us not be led astray from thesimplicity and purity of devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3)!

Praise ye the Lord.Praise ye the Lord from the heavens:Praise him in the heights.Praise ye him, all his angels:Praise ye him, all his hosts.Praise ye him, sun and moon:Praise him, all ye stars of light.Praise him, ye heavens of heavens,And ye waters that be above the heavens.Let them praise the name of the Lord:For he commanded, and they were created

(Psalm 148:1-5).


100 John Morris, Ph.D. (Geology), The Young Earth (Master Books, P.O. Box26060, Colorado Springs, CO. 80917), page 25.

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth:and

the heavens are the work of thy hands(Psalm 102:25).

For, lo, he that formeth the mountains,and

createth the wind,and

declareth unto man what is his thought,that maketh the morning darkness,

andtreadeth upon the high places of the earth,The Lord, The God of hosts, is his name

(Amos 4:13).

The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens;and

his kingdom ruleth over all(Psalm 103:19).




#7

The Beaver

The beaver is another uniquely designed creation. Thefollowing is copied verbatim from Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 15No. 2, March-May 1993, pp. 38-41. Hopefully you will seethe value of subscribing to this creationist magazine (contactwww.AnswersInGenesis.org) as you read the words of authorand scientist, Denis Dreves:

BEAVERS: AQUATIC ARCHITECTS

The dam building ability of beavers is fairly well known, butbeavers possess other amazing design features which God hasincluded in their anatomy. Beavers are air-breathing mammalswhich spend a great deal of time in water. For this reason theyneed special equipment.

First, the beaver has special valves in its ears and nose.When the beaver dives below the water these valvesautomatically close so that no water can enter. When the animalresurfaces, the valves reopen and it breathes again.

Perhaps their most amazing piece of equipment is theireyelids. If you have done any diving or snorkeling you will knowthat water and materials in it can irritate your eyes and wash outnatural lubricants. Not only that, but your eyes do not see wellunder water. That is why snorkelers wear goggles.

Were we original to think up this idea of goggles?Not really. God designed beavers with “built-in” goggles.

Their eyelids are transparent, so they can close their eyesunderwater and still see extremely well. Their transparent eyelidsgive protection to their eyes from waterborne irritants.

189


During winter, beavers must feed on the bark of trees theyhave cut and stored in the autumn, using their specially designed,self-sharpening front incisors (perhaps one of the beaver’s betterknown pieces of equipment).

The beavers collect the young trees [usually two to fivecentimeters (one to two inches) in diameter] for food, cut them tosuitable lengths and then transport them, by holding them in theirteeth, to their underwater cache, forcing the branches into themud at the bottom of the pond.

Amazing Design

Which brings us to another amazing design feature. Toretrieve the stored food in the winter months when ice covers thepond, the beaver may need to chew the sticks underwater. Theycan do this without water entering their mouths, because theyhave fur mouth flaps between their front incisors and their rearmolar teeth, which are set considerably further back. These twofolds of skin, one on each side of the mouth, meet behind theincisors and seal off the rest of the mouth.

The beaver’s large paddle-shaped tail, which has a scale-likeskin covering it, is used as a rudder when it swims. This isparticularly important when the animal is swimming with abranch in its mouth. The tail must compensate for any unevendrag from the branch, thus the tail is often held at an angle foraccurate steering.

The rear feet of the beaver are large and webbed like aduck’s feet to give the animal good swimming ability. The twoinner claws of each foot have split toenails, which the beaveruses as a comb to groom itself and oil its fur.

Beavers use their smaller, unwebbed front paws to carrymud and other materials, and to dig canals which they use as ameans of transporting wood and also as a means of quick escapefrom predators.

The fur of the beaver must be oiled to prevent water reachingthe animal’s skin. The oil is provided from two large oil glands.They are filled with a rich, thick, deep yellow oily liquid, whichthe beaver spreads on its fur for waterproofing. This, along withits two layers of fur, are so effective that water rarely reaches theskin. A layer of fat beneath the skin gives further protectionagainst the cold.


A beaver can swim submerged for perhaps 800 meters (ahalf-mile) or more. Most air-breathing creatures would beadversely affected by lack of oxygen to the brain. The beaver hasspecial equipment to compensate for this need. Large lungs andliver allow for the storage of more air and oxygenated blood. Inaddition, a beaver’s heart beats more slowly when it dives, inorder to conserve oxygen, and the blood is restricted to theanimal’s extremities while the vital supply to the brain remainsnormal.

Engineering Skills

Beavers construct dams that may be hundreds of meterslong. Construction of the dam is done by cutting down trees andshrubs, dragging each piece to the dam-site, and laying them inthe water parallel to the stream (end facing upstream). Almosteverything the beavers can find goes into the dam—live wood,dead wood, mud, grass and rocks. When the beaver’s pondfloods, mounting pressure on the dam can cause it to break. Toprevent this, if there is time, the beaver engineers a spillway torelieve pressure, then fixes it after the water subsides.

Beaver lodges are also the work of a master builder. They arebuilt with sticks, and sealed from the cold with mud. The centerof the roof is not sealed, which allows some ventilation. Accessis only from underwater, with more than one entry in case of theneed to escape. The beavers can gain direct underwater access tothe cache of sticks they have stored under the water when icecovers the pond in winter and this is their only available food.

Truly the beaver is yet another example of the wonderfulprovision and wise planning of a caring, Creator God. Suchvariety of essential equipment could not have evolved over timeby chance and selection. All of the beaver’s equipment must bepresent and fully functional in the animal from the beginningfor it to survive its semi-aquatic life-style [Emphasis added—ed.].

The Beaver 191

8DO MUTATIONS PRODUCE

NEW LIFE FORMS?

When I began to feel the pressure of having noexperimentally verifiable facts to substantiate my

position as a theistic evolutionist, I turned to what I thoughtwas my ace in the hole: Genetics. Didn’t everyone know thatthe science of genetics had irrevocably shown evolution inprogress? Without mutations (changes in the genes andchromosomes), there is no evolutionary change. The questionmy students asked was, “Do mutations produce new lifeforms or improvements in present life forms?” Naturally, Iassumed they produce new forms and I thought I could proveit from the scientific literature. I was due for another rudeawakening!

Many creationists101 and evolutionists study thephenomenon of genetic mutation. Dr. Ernst Mayr of Harvardexpressed the predominant view of evolutionists: “Ultimately,all variation is, of course, due to mutation.”102 Dr. Mayrinstructs us that all variation (different types of plants andanimals) observable in life is due to changes in the genes and

101 Dr. Walter Brown wrote a paper several years ago on the evidences forcreation. In his footnotes was a selection of quotes from the pro-evolutionary literaturedealing with genetics. For this valuable information, please contact Dr. Walter Brown,The Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 North 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016.

102 Ernst Mayr, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretationof Evolution (Philadelphia: Wister Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

192

chromosomes. These mutations occur in the make-up ofDNA.

DNA: LANGUAGE OF THE CELLDNA, the basic information system of the cell, contains

the blue prints needed to manufacture 2,000 or more differentproteins. Each of these proteins is manufactured in little “cell-factories” at the direction of the DNA and is essential for themaintenance of life. So, which came first? If DNA is essentialin the manufacturing process of proteins, and themanufacturing process produces the proteins essential toDNA, then you can’t have one without the other. This meansthey both must have been created fully functional and atexactly the same point in time. In other words, God must havecreated the information system of all cells at a point in timeand fully functional. Proteins are necessary to make DNA, butDNA is needed to make proteins! DNA provides theinstructions to the chemical factories inside the cell formaking itself.

Scientists call DNA the “language of the cell.” Allscientists agree that language requires intelligence. Noticethat language is information and information is non-material.Could there be an implication here that DNA, the “languageof the cell,” required non-material intelligence to create it?Could it be that DNA was created fully functional in all thedifferent kinds of life by an intelligent designer God, Whoingeniously inserted thousands and thousands of pages ofunbelievably complex technical information into somemicroscopic strands of protein called DNA? The God of theBible, Who is infinite in His wisdom, would have no troublehere!

Evolution offers no answers to this weighty problem ofthe volumes of information carried by the DNA. Informationrequires intelligence. Evolutionary theory claims no activity

Do Mutations Produce New Life Forms? 193

of intelligence in the evolution of life forms. Yet, the God ofCreation proclaims through His Holy Scriptures, “I created,created, created!”

How does a professor who is a believer in evolution on auniversity campus answer the following syllogism?

Language is caused by intelligence.DNA is the language of the cell.

Therefore DNA had an intelligent cause.

The professors answer with silence!The genetic information of DNA cannot be improved

upon in any normal, healthy organism. Natural selection, or“survival of the fittest,” does not produce new genes; itmerely selects the best-suited animal or plant life for aspecific niche or environment. This is adaptation to a specificenvironment and not mutation. Yet, mutation is the onlymechanism scientists have proposed to generate the “new”genetic information needed for evolutionary change in themolecules-to-man model. This presents an enormous problemfor the evolution model, especially when we learn thatmutation in a gene is a rare event.103

How could life have evolved into all its millions of formsif the very mechanism that causes it to evolve (mutation) is arare event? Most scientists would agree that when mutationsdo occur in nature, they are either harmful to the organism orharmless (silent mutations), but there has never been anobserved beneficial mutation that added new geneticinformation.

The process of mutation is the only source of the raw materialsof genetic variability, and hence, of evolution.... The mutantswhich arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers,


103 “Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is arelatively rare event...” (Francisco Ayala, “The Mechanics of Evolution,” ScientificAmerican, September 1978, p. 63).

at least in the environments which the species normallyencounters (Theodosius Dobzhansky).104

Dobzhansky spent his professional life breeding andmutating fruit flies. In the end, he had somewhat strange fruitflies, but fruit flies nonetheless. Some of those flies were noteven able to reproduce because they had become sterile.Dobzhansky writes that mutations are the only source ofevolution, but that they are almost always harmful (whichmeans, the mutation makes the life-form that gets themutation in its genes, less able to survive where it lives). Imight, again, add here that mutations are harmless orneutral at best, lethal at worst, and never have beenproven in undisturbed nature to be beneficial. So, why doevolutionists continue to put so much faith in mutations as thechief mechanism for their evolutionary existence? It seemsobvious that they do not want to “let a Divine foot in thedoor.”105

If “survival of the fittest” is true, then the harmfulmutations should contribute to extinctions, not to new andbetter life forms. Of course, what we observe in nature areextinctions of plants and animals rather than emerging, newlife forms. There are millions of living things, from plants andanimals to insects, but we hear almost weekly of moreextinctions. How many newly evolved creatures have youheard about in your lifetime? With all the millions of livingthings in the world, surely mutations are happening, andsomething is or has evolved into something else somewhere.The evolutionists are frantically searching for the smallesthint that something will produce new genetic informationequipping it to evolve into a new biological entity to provetheir theory to be true.


104 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology andAnthropology,” American Scientist, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.

105 See: Lewontin, p.34.

ARE DOGS EVOLVING?Some of you may have heard the argument that dog-

breeding experiments have proven evolution to be true. Infact, it proves just the opposite. Beginning with theMongolian brown haired dog, you can selectively breedpoodles, St. Bernards, dalmatians, golden retrievers, ratterriers, blood hounds, collies, chihuahuas or any of 250different dog breeds. But, you obtain those dog breeds by lossof genetic information, not by gaining any new geneticinformation. You will never regain lost genetic material. Apoodle will not revert back into another breed of dog becausethe genetic information has been permanently lost—unlessMr. Stud Mongrel Heinz 57 jumps over your back fence tosupply some extra genetic material!

ARE GUPPIES EVOLVING?A few years ago, the evolutionary community presented

to the public one of their examples of evolution in progress. Itwas a guppy family that had been separated from their oldfriends for several years. When the guppies were reunited,they would not mate. Evolutionists consider a life-form to bea new species when it will no longer mate with its old friends.Maybe the guppy didn’t smell good when it came back fromits temporary environment. Or maybe its old friends didn’trecognize it, or maybe the researchers didn’t wait longenough to see if the guppy would be accepted again. The factis that both populations of guppies were still unmistakablyidentifiable to scientists and laymen as guppies. Where is theevidence for the evolution of one creature into another when,after eleven years of breeding guppies, they are still guppies?

Even if these fishes refuse to breed with each other andare therefore categorized as a new species of guppy, does thisprove evolution of one kind into another kind of creature?People have devised their definitions of and limits to species,


but God refers to “kinds” in the Genesis account. Biblically,there are certain boundaries that no living form can cross. Aspecific “kind” of creature will never evolve into another“kind” of creature. Guppies are fish. Within the fish-kindthere is a lot of room for change, even “evolutionary” change,but fish will forever be fish—big ones, little ones, fresh waterand salt water, but still fish.

Is there intellectual integrity and honesty when scientiststell us in school and college that the chief mechanism in ourever upward and onward evolutionary process is mutation inthe genes when they say in the scientific literature thatmutations are harmful or deadly or neutral? “Mutations aremore than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affectviability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affectit adversely” (Evolutionist C.P. Martin).106,107,108

So, we learn that mutations in a healthy life-forminvariably cause harmful changes or death (lethal) to theorganism. How does evolution from molecules-to-man occurif the very process that supposedly causes it to happen, intruth, harms or kills the organism? To put this another way,why did the evolutionary scientists evacuate the area whenthe Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania and theone in Russia at Chernobyl leaked radiation? Why didn’tthese scientists move their families into the area to beirradiated so mutations might develop and they could evolveinto the next higher life form? The scientists knew that their


106 C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist,January 1953, p. 162.

107 “If we say that it is only by chance that they (mutations) are useful, we arestill speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal” [W. R.Thompson, Introduction to the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (New York: E. P.Dutton, 1956), p. 10].

108 “Lethal mutations outnumber visibles (Albinism, Dwarfism, Hemophilism)by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have harmful effects are even more frequent than lethalones” [A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mufflin Co., 1977), p.356].

offspring would inherit unhealthy characteristics from theradiation. They got away from the mutation-causing radiationas fast as they could!

Professor of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin,James Crow writes:

...mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is arandom change of a highly organized reasonably smoothlyfunctioning living body. A random change in the highlyintegrated system of chemical processes which constitute life isalmost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange ofconnections in a television set is not likely to improve thepicture.109

Dr. Crow’s analogy is accurate. All of us know that stirring upand haphazardly reattaching wires in the back of a T.V. setwill not improve the picture. In the same way, randomchanges in the genes do not improve our ability to live andfunction. As a matter of fact, no scientist has yet observed arandom mutation produce a new hormone, enzyme, or simpleorgan.110 Nevertheless, they teach us and our children the liethat we are here because our primeval ancestors hadmutations occur in their genes that caused them to evolvehigher and higher until, here we are. Magic! Listen to thewords of the famous evolutionist from the University ofPennsylvania, Dr. Loren Eiseley:


109 James Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, 14(1958), p. 19-20.

110 “Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producingnew structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observedemerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory.Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integrationof a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kindof radical novelty. Neither observation or controlled experiment has shown naturalselection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzymesystem or organ” [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider Press, 1981),pp. 67,68].

With the failure of these many efforts [to prove evolution to betrue], science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position ofhaving to postulate theories of living origins which it could notdemonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his relianceon myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviableposition of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, theassumption that what, after long effort could not be proved totake place today had in truth, taken place in the primeval past[Emphasis added].111

PLANT EVOLUTIONOne of the world’s leading experts on plant evolution and

fossil plants, Dr. E. J. H. Corner of Cambridge Universitydogmatically states:

The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin ofspecies, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms canbe classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Muchevidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution—from biology, bio-geography and paleontology, but I still thinkthat, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favourof special creation [Emphasis added].112

According to expert Corner, there is no evidence for theevolution of plants. In fact, when plants are studied closelythey appear to be a special creation!

A good example of a “very special creation” in the plantkingdom is the Ophrys stylidium orchid. One day I typed“flower” into my Internet search engine and that led me to theOphrys orchids. You will most probably never have readabout the stylidium orchid in your public school or universitytextbooks because it is impossible to describe in evolutionary


111 Dr. Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957),p. 199.

112 E. J. H. Corner, ‘Evolution’ in Contemporary Botanical Thought, eds. AnnaM. Macleod and L. S. Cobley, Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburg,1961, p. 97. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p. 11.

terms! This amazing little flower is designed to bring glory toits Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The orchid has its petals and on the end of one of thestamens (little things that stick up in the middle of a flower)is a configuration that looks like a certain species of femalewasp. How does evolution explain a flower that mimics aparticular insect? The aroma that the orchid puts out is thesame aroma that the female wasp puts out when she is lookingfor Mr. Wasp. So Mr. Wasp is flying around looking for Mrs.Wasp and he smells the aroma. He looks down and sees Mrs.Wasp, but it is the flower mimicking the female wasp. Mr.Wasp swoops down and lands on the flower. Well, does he geta big surprise! The part of the flower that looks and smellslike Mrs. Wasp is on a hinge-action, spring-loaded joint.When the male lands on this part of the flower, the spring-loaded joint flips him down into the flower and pollen sacsattach to his head.

As the astonished male wasp climbs out of the flower, hemust be thinking, “I think I’ll find a different Mrs. Wasp.” Heis fooled again and is “popped” into another orchid. This timethe pollen sacs on his head are exchanged for some new onesand he just pollinated the orchid. For two weeks, the malegoes from flower, “pop,” to flower, “pop,” to flower.

Two weeks after the males mature, the females mature.Once the real Mrs. Wasp comes on the scene, the male willnever again go back to the orchid. Here is another problem forthe evolutionist: The timing must be perfect or the orchid willnot be pollinated and will go extinct in one generation. Thereis a two-week window when the flower is mature and readyto pollinate, which must be the same two-week window whenthe male wasp is mature and is looking for the female wasp,but it must be the same two weeks that she is not yet on thescene!


The even more amazing fact is that there are manyvarieties of these orchids and each one mimics a differentwasp or bee or fly! It is such a shame that there are so manytruly wonderful things that our dear Lord has made for us toenjoy and for us to study and to give him glory and praise, andwe have been taught nothing about them. As of 2002, theystill are not in our children’s textbooks.

The field of botany (plants) does not prove evolution. Yet,evolutionists like Dr. Corner still believe in an evolutionarymythological system. He is trusting his compatriots in“biology, bio-geography and paleontology” to proveevolution to be true. In Corner’s field (plants), specialcreation appears to be the best option. AND, PUTTING ALLTHE EVIDENCE TOGETHER, SPECIAL CREATION ISTHE BEST OPTION!

If there is no evidence for the evolution of people orplants, then is there any evidence for the evolution of fish?

EVOLUTION OF FISHThe geological record has so far provided no evidence as to theorigin of the fishes,...[J.R. Norman (British Museum of NaturalHistory)].113

According to these experts, there is no evidence for theevolution of plants, and no evidence for the evolution of fish.What about amphibians?

EVOLUTION OF AMPHIBIANS...none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral tothe earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the firstamphibians appeared, and those that came before show noevidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterizedthe primitive tetrapods…. Since the fossil material provides no


113 J. R. Norman, “Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils,” in A History of Fishes,3rd ed., ed. Dr. P. H. Greenwood, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1975,p. 343. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p. 11.

evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish totetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs andaerial breathing evolved [Barbara J. Stahl (Emphasis added)].114

No evidence for the evolution of plants and no evidencefor fish. What’s more, the only evidence for amphibians is the“speculations” of the fossil experts. Speculation is just a bigword for “guess.” A guess is not proof that legs and aerialbreathing evolved! The evidence, then, for evolution ofcreatures, as they supposedly developed the ability to crawlout of water and live as land animals, is in the imagination ofthe evolutionist. There are no fossils and no facts to supportbelief in the evolution of amphibians from fish. How aboutbirds?

EVOLUTION OF BIRDSThe [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter ofdeduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages throughwhich the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved(Evolutionist, W.E. Swinton).115

The evolution of birds is a “matter of deduction.”“Deduction” in this case is a polite synonym for imagination.The evolutionists are back to guessing again. There is not asingle, undisputed fossil that shows the evolutionarytransitions of cold-blooded reptiles into warm-blooded birds.

THE PACIFIC GOLDEN PLOVERThe Pacific Golden Plover is a good example of a bird that

cannot be described in evolutionary terms. Alaska is itssummer nesting grounds and Hawaii its winter home. Golden


114 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1974), pp. 148,195. As quoted in The Quote Book, p. 11.

115 W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Chapter 1 in Biology and ComparativePhysiology of Birds, A. J. Marshall, ed., Vol. I (New York: Academic Press, 1960), p.1. As quoted in The Quote Book, p. 11.

plover hens raise their young each summer in Alaska. As soonas the young can fend for themselves, the adults take off forHawaii, leaving the young behind. The young must gainstrength and weight to get ready for their long flight to winterwith their parents.

The average weight of the golden plover before it leavesAlaska to fly to Hawaii is 200 grams. It is a small bird aboutthe size of a pigeon. It is also a bird that does not swim!Researchers have concluded that 70 grams of its 200 grams isburnable energy. The rate at which the bird burns fuel whenflying is about one gram per hour. This means right at 70hours of flight is possible. Now we have a potentiallydisastrous situation. The flight to Hawaii takes 88 hours ofcontinuous, non-stop flight! The little bird must fly for threedays and four nights without food or rest or stopping at all.Impossible! How does it do this?

The birds fly in a formation that breaks the wind, takingless energy to fly. New leaders are constantly rotating in andout. Formation flight saves energy and when the birds arrivein Hawaii, they have as much as 6 grams of fuel left over. Godmust have built the reserve fuel supply into the plover in caseof a strong head wind along the way.

Scientists are not certain how the plovers navigate fromAlaska to Hawaii and back, since there is no land under theirflight path. Utilization of earth’s magnetic field seems to bethe best solution at this point. Some have suggested that theyuse the sun and stars. And how do the young birds find theirway to Hawaii without an experienced adult guide, weeksafter their parents have already flown back to Hawaii? A one-degree mistake in navigation over the more than 4,000kilometer flight and the birds miss Hawaii completely! Butthey never miss! The God of the Bible is the guiding forcebehind the incredible endurance and navigational abilities of


the little golden plover. Nothing is too difficult or impossiblefor our Creator!

Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven andthe earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, andthere is nothing too hard for thee (Jeremiah 32:17).

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me (Jeremiah 32:27)?

A major problem for evolution is the migration of thegolden plover over ocean water with no place to rest betweenAlaska and Hawaii. Evolutionists usually teach that migratoryanimals learn their migratory routes over time and withexperience. Let us imagine a newly evolved bird that willevolve into a migratory bird. Our warm-blooded bird arrivesin Texas after a lengthy, mindless, purposeless, randomchance, accidental evolution from a flightless, cold-bloodedreptile. [How does a cold-blooded reptile give birth to awarm-blooded bird? This is a major leap of faith for anevolutionist!]

Our evolving bird discovers that Texas gets a bit too coldin winter, so it flies down to Mexico for the winter. Each yearor so, it flies further north for the summer and further southfor the winter. Finally, it finds just the right climate forsummer and winter and migrates between these two placesfrom then on. I think the God of the Bible made the littlePacific golden plover to totally discredit this kind ofevolutionary teaching! It had to make its full migratory flightthe very first time (and every time after that) or it would dropinto the ocean and drown.

According to the evolutionary experts cited above,evolution is grossly lacking in hard evidence! Although weare told that mutations are good because they generate newlife and produce evolution, we do not see this “good”happening in reality. Genetic mutations cannot be the driving


force behind evolution. Nor do the evolutionists provideevidence to prove the evolution of any creature.

TIME GENERATES MIRACLESBut what if earth history was counted in billions of years?

The old argument always comes along at this point thatanything can happen in a mindless, purposeless, totallyrandom chance, accidental system, if it is given enough time.The miracle of life can come from informationless deadchemicals if given enough time. We will discuss the “billionsof years” argument in Chapter 9.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION!A short discussion of “information” may be helpful at this

point. Dr. Werner Gitt is a specialist in informationtransmission and technology. In his informative book, In theBeginning was Information, he records several impossibilitytheorems dealing with information.

It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without usinga code.

It is impossible to have a code apart from a free and deliberateconvention.

It is impossible that information can exist without having had amental source.

It is impossible for information to exist without having beenestablished voluntarily by a free will.

It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchicallevels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

It is impossible that information can originate in statisticalprocesses.116

Dr. Gitt continues by saying:


116 See: Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information (Bielefeld, Germany:Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e. V.), 1997, p.80.

Information is nonmaterial, but it requires material media for storageand transmission.

Information is not life, but the information in cells is essential for allliving beings. Information is a necessary prerequisite for life.

Life is nonmaterial, and it is not information, but both entities, matterand information, are essential for life.117

According to Dr. Gitt, information is not life, but isnecessary for life (as we all know). Since information needs acode, and a code requires a mental source, mindless evolutionof new genetic information is technically impossible!

Before leaving Chapter 8, let us not forget that changes inthe information content of the genes (random mutations) donot improve present life-forms. Nor is there any solid factualevidence that mindless, random genetic changes generate newinformation for plants or animals. The evacuation of ThreeMile Island and Chernobyl to escape radiation leaks spokevolumes! (If, indeed, mutations are helpful and informationcan be added to the genes, then we should gladly andwillingly expose ourselves to radiation-caused gene changesto “improve” our evolutionary opportunities and evolve intothe next higher life form!)


117 Ibid., p.81.

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, themoon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the sonof man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thyhands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and

whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the

earth (Psalm 8:3-9)!




#8

The Chicken Egg

A fertilized chicken egg is a very special creation. Beforeeven thinking about a chick developing in an egg, it isinteresting to ponder how the chicken manages to get a shellaround that slippery, raw, fertilized egg. It is a rare sight onthe farm to see raw egg smeared on the outside of the shell.Have you ever attempted to put an egg back into its shell afterit rolled off the counter?

The shell itself is highly specialized. Each chicken eggshell has about 10,000 tiny holes or pores. How does thatchicken form a shell around a soft, messy egg and design theshell to have porosity? Put a raw egg in warm water and soonyou will see tiny bubbles floating up. These bubbles areescaping through the pores in the shell. The developing chickneeds these pores to breathe. Evolution basically says thatwhen a need arises in an organism, mindless, random chanceprocesses provide exactly, precisely and specifically what theorganism needs to alter and improve it so that it will survive.How does a chicken know it needs to make a shell withporosity, and how would mindless evolution manufacturesuch a shell? The chick does not know it needs the holes inthe shell to breathe until it dies for lack of air. Of course, deadchicks cannot evolve.

Within the first few days after the egg is laid, bloodvessels begin to grow out of the developing chick. Two ofthese attach to the membrane under the eggshell and two

209

attach to the yolk. By the fifth day, the tiny heart is pumpingblood through the vessels. What makes those blood vesselsgrow out of the chick, and how do they know where to go andto what to attach? The chick feeds from the yolk with the yolkvessels and breathes through the membrane vessels. If any ofthese vessels do not grow out of the chick or attach to thecorrect place, the chick will die.

The chick gives off carbon dioxide and water vapor as itmetabolizes the yolk. If it does not get rid of the carbondioxide and water vapor, it will die of gaseous poisoning ordrown in its own wastewater. These waste products are pickedup by the blood vessels and leave through the pores in theeggshell. What evolutionary chance happening provided forall of these crucial advancements?

By the nineteenth day, the chick is too big to get enoughoxygen through the pores in the shell. It must do something ordie. How does it know what to do next? By this time, a smalltooth called the “egg-tooth” has grown onto its beak. It usesthis little tooth to peck a hole into the air sack at the flat endof the egg. When you peel a hard-boiled egg you notice thethin membrane under the shell and the flattened end of theegg. This flattened end, which looks like the hen did not quitefill up her egg shell, is the air sack. The air sack provides onlysix hours of air for the chick to breathe. Instead of relaxingand breathing deeply, with this new-found supply of air, thechick keeps pecking until it breaks a small hole through theshell to gain access to outside air in adequate amounts.

On the twenty-first day, the chick breaks out of the shell.If one step in the development of the chick is missing or outof order, the chick dies.118 Timing is absolutely crucial!


118 Bob Devine, God In Creation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), pp. 9-13. Thisbooklet discusses ten of God’s creations and shows how they could not have evolved.There are a series of these booklets.

Each step in the development of the chick defiesevolutionary logic. The process must be orchestrated by God,our Creator. The impersonal plus time plus chance is not anadequate explanation for the wondrous complexities of life aswe observe it. There had to be a Designer and His name is theLord Jesus Christ (John 1; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1).

The Chicken Egg 211

9EARTH: YOUNG OR OLD?

GIVE ME FACTS,NOT ASSUMPTIONS

When faced with a lack of evidence to support theirfaith system, the evolution of molecules to man,

the evolutionist will always fall back on the argument of“time.” “Give us enough time,” they say, “and evolution willoccur.” And so the evolutionists publish dates of billions ofyears for the age of the universe. These “billions and billionsof years” are emphasized from our childhood days. As littlechildren, we hear famous people and “credentialed” sciencewriters in white lab coats over and over again and again referto these long ages of time. News broadcasters and publictelevision nature programs refer to billions of years as amatter of fact. Repetition is essential to brainwashing;brainwashing is essential to belief in dead-chemicals-to-one-living-cell-to-man evolution, since there is no factualscience (science not based on assumptions) to back it up.Macroevolution cannot be proven to be true since no one wasthere but the Creator to witness The Beginning. Hence, bothevolution and creation are faith systems.

Most creationists would say that the universe issomewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. (The Bibleshows the universe to be about 6,000 years old via the biblicalgenealogical tables). A young universe is not a problem for

212

creationists because our God, the Creator-God of the Bible, isalso the Creator of time. He does not need long ages of time.He can and did create people, plants and animals fully mature,but only seconds old.

What if someone was able to take a piece of one ofAdam’s bones on the sixth day of the creation week (the dayAdam was created) and to send it to a C14 dating lab? Howold would the lab claim Adam’s bone to be? Probablythousands of years old, even though it was only one day old,because they would not find any C14 in the bone. Of course,on the sixth day of the creation week, Adam would not havehad time to eat plants containing C14 and the C14 then wouldnot have been transported to his bones. So, a very old, butvery false date would be obtained for Adam’s age. (With thewater canopy in place before the Flood, almost no C14 wouldhave been formed in that atmosphere anyway. So, on the dayof Adam’s death, 930 years later, the C14 lab would mostprobably still publish Adam’s bones to be thousands of yearsold since they would, even at the end of his life, again findlittle or no C14.)

This brings up another problem with C14. Dr. WillardLibby, the discoverer and inventor of the C14 method fordating organic material, noticed a problem. If the earth wereolder than 30,000 years, C14 and C12 would be in a steadystate of equilibrium with each other. The problem is that theyare not yet in that steady state of equilibrium! As a matter offact, there is more than a 25% discrepancy between C14 andC12. This can mean only one thing. THE EARTH AND ITSATMOSPHERE ARE LESS THAN 30,000 YEARS OLD!

Using C14 to date anything older than about 4,500 years(The Flood of Noah’s day when the protective water canopycollapsed was about 4,500 years ago) may very well producea totally false age determination. There are published reportsof detectable amounts of C14 in coal deposits. This coal must

Earth: Young or Old? 213

then be only a few thousand years old and not 10 to 20 millionyears old! [See ICR and AIG web pages.]

Since accurately obtaining very old ages utilizing C14 isbiblically impossible, then what can we say about the datingtechniques commonly used to date rocks with agesdetermined to be millions and even billions of years old?

The evolutionists make major assumptions during thecourse of determining a date of several million or billionyears for the age of a piece of rock. If any of theirassumptions are invalid, then it is impossible to use thattechnique to find a correct age for the rock.

Here is how these dating techniques work: Let us say wefind a rock and then want to determine how old it is. Wedecide to analyze the rock by looking for certain elements orcompounds which break down over time into certain otherelements or compounds. We might look for a special isotopeof uranium and the element it eventually breaks down(decays) into, which is lead. In our rock specimen, we findsome of this special uranium and some of the lead it decaysinto (the “daughter” element).

The lead is called the daughter element because it comesfrom the breakdown of its mother element, uranium. We canmeasure how much lead is in the rock, and because we thinkwe know how fast (or slowly) the uranium would decay intothe lead, the amount of lead in the rock should then tell ushow old the rock is. In other words, the amount of leadpresent in the rock would have resulted from a certain amountof uranium decaying over a certain number of years into lead.For all of this to yield a specific time frame in millions orbillions of years, certain assumptions are made.

ASSUMPTION ONE: NO DAUGHTER COMPONENTFirst, it is assumed by the rock-dating expert that the

system must have initially contained none of its daughter


component. In order to accurately calculate the age of a rockspecimen, there can be no lead (daughter) in the original rock.It takes 4.5 billion years for half the amount of uranium todecay into a certain amount of lead. We analyze a rock anddiscover it has that certain amount of lead in it. The article wepublish would state, with full conviction, “This rock was 4.5billion years old as scientifically dated using high-techprocedures by Dr. Credentials who has a double Ph.D. in rockdating.” Who will doubt how old the rock is? Almost no one.But hold on for a minute. Suppose God created that rock withsome of the lead (daughter) already in it. How can the expertdifferentiate between the lead that God put there originallyand the lead that came from uranium decay?

Science tells us there is absolutely no difference in thephysical and chemical properties between the lead in thespecimen that has been lead since the beginning and the leadthat came through the decay process. So, no one can knowhow much lead was there to begin with. Consequently, forlaboratory “accuracy” the evolutionist must arbitrarily decide,“There was no lead (daughter element) there to begin with; Ican’t prove it, but I will assume (pretend) this to be true.”

It is mathematically impossible to have two variables inone equation and to be able to solve the equation. Onevariable in every rock dating equation that is unknown is theinitial amount of the daughter element and the secondunknown variable is the age of the specimen. Yet claims areconstantly made that one can determine the age of the rock inspite of the two unknowns.

An example of this could be a burning candle. If you walkinto a room and find a candle burning, you can measure therate at which it is burning. Assuming that it has been burningat that constant rate the entire time, can you determine 1) howtall that candle was when it was lit and 2) how long it has been


burning? The answer to this is an emphatic no! There are twounknowns in a single equation.

Every time you are told that a rock is several million orbillion or even tens of thousands of years old, the scientistdoing the dating has assumed no daughter element initiallyexisted. This means he guesses every time. Do we takescientists’ guesses as valid fact and then proceed to thebelief that the Bible must be wrong when it talks of 24-hour creation days about 6,000 years ago? Surely not!

ASSUMPTION TWO: NO CONTAMINATIONThe second assumption of the scientist dating the rock is

that his specimen of rock had never been contaminated.Nothing could have come into or out of the rock that couldalter the dating analysis to give an erroneous date. This woulddemand an “Isolated System” for the rock’s environment. AsDr. Henry Morris says in Scientific Creationism,119 there is nosuch thing in nature as an isolated system. The closed systemis an ideal concept convenient for analysis, but non-existent inthe real world. Morris mentions that the idea of a systemremaining isolated for millions of years becomes an absurdity.

One reaction that even more seriously alters the datingdata is the radioactive radon gas that is one of theintermediates of the thirteen-step decay process of uraniumbecoming lead. Radon gas is an inert element that does notchemically react with any other element and therefore stays ina gaseous state. A radioactive element that is a gas and has ahalf-life of several years would have bubbled away from therock specimen that is being analyzed. Extremely hightemperatures and varying pressures, which are predicted inthe old earth model, would also affect the bubbling away tovarious degrees. The result of this gain and/or loss of daughter


119 Dr. Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Pubs.,1974), Chapter VI.

and intermediate elements (such as radon gas bubbling away)would seriously affect the ability to accurately date the rock.

Some evolutionists claim that every molecule in theuniverse has been in at least four different substances sincethe Big Bang. But evolutionists cannot have both; they cannothave molecules jumping around from one substance toanother and molecules steadfast and immovable, as theywould have to be in the isolated system in order to make theirdating techniques work.

Therefore, the second assumption needed to affix olddates to rocks is not valid. Rocks do get contaminated asthings seep into them, and rocks change their constituents asthings leech out and bubble out of them. An isolated systemsounds good and must be assumed to have accuracy in datingrocks, but it does not occur in nature.

ASSUMPTION THREE: CONSTANT DECAY RATEThe third assumption listed by Dr. Henry Morris

(Scientific Creationism, p. 138) is that, “The process rate musthave always been the same.” Remember our candle analogyfrom assumption #1? What if there was an additionalcomplication? What if the candle was not burning at aconstant rate? What if a breeze had blown across it for a fewminutes right after it was first lit which made it burn faster?That would make the equation contain three unknownvariables. If it is impossible to solve an equation with twounknowns, it will not help a whole lot to add a third unknown!

If the process rate (the speed at which the mother elementbreaks down into the daughter element) has ever changedsince the rock was formed, then the change of rate of decaywould have to be known for the age calculation to beaccurate. Scientists now know that process rates can bealtered by various factors. Decay rates can be speeded up orslowed down in certain substances when subjected to various


types of radiation, heat and pressure. As Dr. Morris states,every process in nature operates at a rate that is influenced bya number of different factors (p. 139).

Let’s also look at this the other way around: if there wereno changes in the decay rate, then the third of the three datingassumptions listed above might be correct even though theother two would of themselves destroy the accuracy of thedating technique.

“EDUCATED GUESSES” FOR DATING ROCKS?Dr. Morris says that educated guesses are made to

determine apparent ages. But the apparent age may becompletely unrelated to the true age of the rock. Guesses mustbe made when rocks are dated at millions of years if it hasbeen only 6,000 years since every rock in the universe wascreated! If 6,000 years old is the oldest possible age of anyrock in the universe, then how do the rock-dating expertsarrive at millions or billions of years? Dr. Richard Mauger,Ph.D. in Geology, puts it this way:

In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to becorrect and are published, but those in disagreement with otherdata are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fullyexplained.120

“Assumptions determine conclusions,” so if theassumptions are not valid, then the conclusions (as in the ageof rocks) will be wrong. If the primary assumption is that theuniverse is billions of years old, then the dating techniqueswill be calibrated to render vast old ages when rocks aredated. The “correct ball park” will be billions of years, evenwhen the rocks cannot be older than 6,000 years.


120 Mauger, Richard Ph.D., “K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs in Eocene Rocksof the Green River, Washakie and Uinta Basins of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado,”Contributions to Geology, vol. 15(1), 1977, p. 37, University of Wyoming.

THE THREE ASSUMPTIONSThese three assumptions: (l) no original daughter element,

(2) a closed system, and (3) the same decay rate throughoutall time—are always involved when a scientist dates a rock.None of these assumptions are valid, and none are able to besubjected to the scientific method of observation andreproducible experimentation. There is no way to accuratelydate anything beyond several thousand years. That means theearth could be quite young and no scientist can absolutelyprove otherwise!

...there is certainly no real proof that the vast evolutionary timescale is valid at all.

That being true, there is no compelling reason why weshould not seriously consider once again the possibilities in therelatively short time scale of the creation model.

As a matter of fact, the creation model does not, in its basicform, require a short time scale. It merely assumes a period ofspecial creation sometime in the past, without necessarily statingwhen that was. On the other hand, the evolution model doesrequire a long time scale. The creation model is thus free toconsider the evidence on its own merits, whereas the evolutionmodel is forced to reject all evidence that favors a short timescale.

Although the creation model is not necessarily linked to ashort time scale, as the evolution model is to a long scale, it istrue that it does fit more naturally in a short chronology.Assuming the Creator had a purpose in His creation, and thatpurpose centered primarily in man, it does seem moreappropriate that He would not waste aeons of time in essentiallymeaningless caretaking of an incomplete stage or stages of Hisintended creative work.121

The truth is that we have been taught a lie from ourearliest school days.122 We are taught to believe that the earth


121 Dr. Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 136.122 An in-depth study of the lies and consequences of evolution is Ken Ham’s

book, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987).

is very old even though there is no factual science (seeChapter 2 “assumptions”) to support eons of time. But we arenot taught the bountiful evidences that lead to the conclusionthat the earth is quite possibly only a few thousand years old.Textbook writers hold back and do not print the evidences fora young universe because they suppress the truth inunrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

How many evidences for a young earth can you list rightnow? Did you try to think of some? Can you write down evenone solid proof that the earth is young? Most people(including Christians) cannot think of even one proof of ayoung age for the earth. You see! We have been led into oneof the lies of Satan’s world system—that the universe is veryold.123

If a group of Christians were asked, “Do you believe Godcreated the heavens and the earth?” Every hand would go upattesting to their sure belief, “Yes, God created the heavensand the earth.” Should a second question be proposed, “Doyou believe God used billions of years of geologic ages andthe process of evolution to create?” Some pauses and wafflingwould occur, and if everyone were being honest, many handswould go up. Now, a third question is in order, “Do youbelieve that God created the heavens and the earth, the seaand all that is in them in a literal six 24-hour day week about6,000 years ago?” In one evangelical church in Dallas, Texas,only five hands went up in a class of fifty people. You say,“They must not have understood the question!” No, theyunderstood, but only five believed what the Bible says inGenesis 1-11, Exodus 20, John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1,Revelation 4:11, etc. They had been brainwashed by Satan’s


123 For the most up to date information about the age of the earth from acreationist’s position, read Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, edited by LarryVardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin (El Cajon, CA: Institute forCreation Research), 2000.

world system into thinking there is plenty of scientificevidence to prove an old, old universe.

Even in our conservative, evangelical churches there islittle or no teaching regarding the creation issue. Let’s face it,we have been more influenced by the worldly culture aroundus than we have penetrated culture with biblical Truth. Wehave become “conformed to this world” rather than being“transformed by the renewing” of our minds (Romans 12:2).

Dr. John C. Whitcomb has done us all a great service withhis book, The Early Earth: Revised Edition. Dr. Whitcomblists and discusses many of the evidences for believing theBible to be true as written. He contrasts faith in God and HisWord to faith in evolution and an old earth:

...the non-Christian scientist must acknowledge that he alsocomes to the factual, observable phenomenon with a set of basicassumptions and presuppositions that reflect a profound “faith-commitment.” No scientist in the world today was present whenthe earth came into existence, nor do any of us have the privilegeof watching worlds being created today! Therefore, thetestimony of an honest evolutionist could be expressed in termsof...Hebrews 11:3..., as follows: “By faith, I, an evolutionist,understand that the worlds were not framed by the word of anygod, so that what is seen has indeed been made out of previouslyexisting and less complex visible things, by purely naturalprocesses, through billions of years.” Thus it is not a matter of thefacts of science versus the faith of Christians! The fundamentalissue, in the matter of ultimate origins, is whether one puts histrust in the written Word of the personal and living God who wasthere when it all happened, or else puts his trust in the ability ofthe human intellect, unaided by divine revelation to extrapolatepresently observed processes of nature in the eternal past (andfuture). Which faith is the most reasonable, fruitful andsatisfying? In my own case, while studying historical geologyand paleontology at Princeton University, I was totallycommitted to evolutionary perspectives. Since then, however, Ihave discovered the biblical concept of ultimate origins to be farmore satisfying in every respect.


Christians, who truly desire to honor God in their thinking,must not come to the first Chapter of Genesis with preconceivedideas of what could or could not have happened (in terms ofcurrent and changing concepts of uniformitarian scientism). Weare not God’s counselors; He is ours! ‘For who has known themind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?’ (Romans11:34) ‘...For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are yourways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher thanthe earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and mythoughts than your thoughts’ (Isa. 55:8-9).124

Do we know what we believe as Christians? Are we readyalways to give an answer to every man who asks us to give anaccount of the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15)? As mywife and I travel around the USA, we are increasinglyalarmed at the accelerating rate of departure from belief in ayoung earth and global Flood among the leadership of thechurch. Often, church leaders do not seem to realize theimportance of Genesis 1-11 and the creation events as thefoundation of our New Testament doctrine. Theistic evolutionand progressive creationism have penetrated the church andalmost no one in leadership has sounded the alarm. How canyou have Christ the Lord as the last Adam if there was nevera first Adam who began life in a sinless state and then fell (1Corinthians 15:45)? How can there be a doctrine of sin withdeath as its penalty if there were all kinds of creatures dyingas they eventually evolved into Adam? Why do we wearclothes (Genesis 3:21)? Where do we get the idea of one man,one woman as husband and wife for life (Genesis 2:21-25)?Why do we have human government (Genesis 9:1-7)? Yousee, the end result of not believing in a literal Genesis ismurder, divorce, nudity, anarchy, etc., etc. Why do we seesuch horrible crime today? As Alexander Solzenitzen said,“We have forgotten God.” How does a country forget God? It


124 Dr. John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1986), p. 52.

begins by drifting away from a literal belief in the early,foundational chapters of Genesis (Jeremiah 2:32, 3:21;Ezekiel 23:35; Hosea 13:6, 4:6b)!

As a Christian leader, it is a good idea once in a while toreview Scriptures such as Isaiah 9:16; Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6;Micah 3:5. The gospel begins with the Creator. The Creatorreveals Himself to His creation in full power in early Genesis.Later, this same literal Genesis Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ(John 1; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1), entered His creation to dieand be resurrected for the salvation of the fallen race of thefirst Adam! The span of time from Genesis chapter 1 untilJesus was about 4,000 years. Add 2,000 more years to get usup to the present, and the lifetime of planet earth is right at6,000 years. There is absolutely no way to squeeze millions ofyears out of (or into) the Biblical text!!!

IS EARTH 6 THOUSANDOR 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD?

How divergent are these two views (creation and a youngearth versus evolution and an old earth)? Many evolutionists(and some creationists, such as Hugh Ross)125 put the


125 Hugh Ross wrote a book in 1994 entitled, Creation and Time: A Biblical andScientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. This book was published bythe Navigator’s publishing arm, NavPress, and supports a billions-of-years olduniverse. Ross believes that people who teach a young earth perspective are keepingeducated scientists from coming to faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior. With thisposition, Ross denies the sovereignty of Almighty God who will not lose one of Hiselect. Oddly, The Presbyterian Layman (Sept./Oct., 1994) agrees with Ross and statesin the words of Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D. (an elder in St. Andrew’sPresbyterian Church, Newport Beach, Calif.), “Unfortunately, young earth creationistsare resisting...with all their strength, fearful that the old earth view opens the door toevolution. In the process, they are placing in the way of educated unbelievers astumbling block that keeps some from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.”For an excellent critique of Hugh Ross’ book which clearly displays misinterpretationsof scientific theory and his errors in the exegesis of the Hebrew text, please read:Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book of Hugh Ross,written by Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor [Eden Productions, 2628 West BirchwoodCircle, Mesa, Arizona 85202. Phone: (800) 332-2261 or (602) 894-1300. Email:[email protected]].

beginning of earth at about 4.5 billion years ago. The Bibleplaces The Beginning at about 6,000 years ago. DennisPeterson attempts to help us understand the degree ofdifference in these two choices of faith:

One way to visualize the extremes of our choices is to equateone year to the thinness of one page from a typical Bible. If youwere to stack up several Bibles to a height about equal with yourknee, you’d have about 6,000 pages before you.

Now how many Bibles would you have to stack up to makefour and a half billion pages?

The stack would reach at least a hundred and fourteen mileshigh into the stratosphere.

So, you’re standing there between your two stacks, and youare supposed to choose which one to believe in. Why is it you aremade to feel rather sheepish to admit that you lean toward theBiblical stack of about 6,000 years? Or why is it that you start toarrogantly ridicule anyone who would dare to not agree withyour proud billions?126

Petersen lists 35 or 40 evidences for a young earth. These arescientific reasons to believe the universe to be quite young—on the order of several thousand rather than several billionyears. Petersen states:

Scientists are aware of over 70 methods that can give us ideas ofEarth’s age. We could call these “GEOLOGIC CLOCKS.” All ofthem are based on the obvious reality that natural processesoccurring steadily through time produce cumulative and oftenmeasurable results. Most of these “clocks” give a relativelyyoung age for the Earth. Only a few of them yield a conclusionof billions of years. Those few are loudly publicized to supportthe commonly held theory of gradualism.127


126 Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Vol. I, p. 34.127 Ibid., Petersen, p. 35.

THE POYNTING-ROBERTSON EFFECTThe gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic

dust of certain kinds toward them (and certain particles aredriven away, also). This is known as the Poynting-Robertsoneffect. Our sun is estimated to suck in about 100,000 tons ofcosmic dust every day. An old sun should have “pulled in”and destroyed a significant number of particles in our solarsystem. Yet, our solar system is full of these particles! ThePoynting-Robertson effect would seem to suggest a sun andsolar system of less then 10,000 years of age.128 Petersenstates:

All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas,dust and meteors within their range. Stars radiating energy100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiraling effect, pullingthings in all the faster. The unusual thing is that O and B stars areobserved to have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If theywere very old at all, every particle in close range would havebeen pulled in by now.129

Two types of stars, O and B, have huge dust clouds and,hence, must be quite young. No one has ever seen the birth ofa new star, although some scientists have postulated throughcomputer simulations and theoretical mathematics that asmany as three new stars should form every year. No scientistever has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creatorcreated all of His stars on the fourth day of the creation week(Genesis 1:14-19).

In the spring of 1992, some scientists claimed to beobserving a star form out in the stellar heavens. They usedvarious mathematical equations to come to their conclusion.However, if their conclusion is in direct contradiction to what


128 For more about the Poynting Robertson phenomenon, see: R.L. Wysong, TheCreation- Evolution Controversy (Midland, Mich: Inquiry Press, 1981), p. 454ff. Also:Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Books, 1983), p. 29.

129 Ibid., Petersen, p. 44.

the Bible says, then their conclusion is wrong. Again, in 1995,the claim was made that the Hubble Space Telescope hadfound an immense, six trillion mile long, gaseous cloud thatwas a star incubator. The NASA picture displayed finger-likeprojections with stars in front, behind and imbedded in thecloud. Do stars in and around a cloud, in far outer space,prove that the cloud is making the stars? I don’t think so.

So, we sit back and wait a few months or years and finallysome scientist will sheepishly admit, “We are sorry folks, allour meticulously produced, computer enhanced evidence ledus to believe a new star was forming, but we now realize thatwe made a mistake. We will keep looking for a new star toform and we will let you know as soon as we find it.” Godcreated His last star out of nothing on the fourth day of thecreation week!

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created thesethings [“stars,” NASB] that bringeth out their host bynumber: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of hismight, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth [“not oneof them is missing,” NASB] (Isaiah 40:26).

According to Isaiah, God made all the stars and has aname for each one. Astronomers may see stars die since sinentered the universe, but no star-birth is possible; Godcompleted His creation of the universe and rested on theseventh day.

LIGHT FROM THE FARTHEST STARSYou might be thinking, “Okay, but what about the speed

of light and the millions of years necessary to get light fromthe farthest stars to our solar system?” (This is one of thethings I was thinking as I was “evolving” into a creationistback in the early seventies.) Well, first of all, how do we knowit takes millions of years for light to travel to earth from the


farthest stars? Some evolutionary professor told us, or somewriter told us, or someone like Walter Cronkite or Dan Ratheror Carl Sagan told us. There does seem to be a problem here,doesn’t there?

Many scientists, evolutionists and creationists, arestudying Russell Humphrys’ ideas in his book, Starlight andTime.130 To catch up on the recent developments in the time ittakes starlight to reach planet earth from the farthest stars,Humphrys’ book is a must. Perhaps it is “time” that varies.Humphrys discusses the effects of gravity on time. Even hereon earth the atomic clock at Greenwich keeps time at adifferent rate than the atomic clock at the higher elevation atBoulder, Colorado. In outer space where the effects of gravityare much weaker than here on earth, the speed of light mightremain constant, but time would be stretched out. With thiseffect, maybe one day on earth would be the same as onebillion years in outer space! These ideas are out of my league,so I have to take other Christian creationists’ endorsements ofHumphrys’ work.

What if you were to discover that light from the fartheststar could arrive at earth instantly? God created the stars andat the same time the light beams from the stars to the earth.We can’t eliminate this possibility. Our God could do this ifHe wanted to. He created a light beam and it didn’t even havea material light source (the sun) behind it for the first threedays of His creation week!

Look what finite man has done by God’s grace: large filesare transferred from computer to computer or computer toother devices (printer, palm pilots, etc) by infraredcommunication (without cables) in an incredibly short time. Iffinite man can do this, it should not be difficult to imaginewhat our infinite God can do. He created the vast stellar


130 See the writings of Dr. Russell Humphreys at www.ICR.org.

www.icr.org

universe and the light shining between all the things itcontains, instantly.

Having said the above, even today, the distance to theseremote stars has not been calculated. The methods used tomeasure great distances in space are closely examined inconjunction with the basic assumptions of Trigonometry. Theactual distances in space may very well be as great as we havebeen told or they may not. The size of our universe surelyappears to be vast, but we are here questioning the validity ofthe measuring techniques.

Measurements in space are arrived at by three commonlyaccepted techniques. The most reliable way to find out howfar away an object is in space is to get into your spacecraft andfly to it, measuring the distance as you go.

A second way would be to shoot a laser beam and bounceit off of the surface of the object (a planet or the moon or anasteroid). The time it takes the light to go to the object and tocome back tells you the distance. Most stars are too far awayto use this method.

The third method is called “parallaxing.” In this method,the extreme ends of earth’s orbit can be used to triangulate.Most stars are so far away that it becomes impossible to makeuseful measurements of the angles to determine the apex ofthe triangle: the two sides of the triangle are almost parallel toeach other. And the triangle gets to be too “skinny” as theapex ends up in the deep outer space. We cannot get into aspace ship and travel to the stars to measure the distance, thelaser beam technique has its limits and the triangulationmethod is only good for a distance of a few light years.

Anything beyond these three methods (and othermethods, if any), is theoretical and a postulation. One suchpostulation is Doppler shift. This has not been reliablebecause the red shift and the blue shift of some stars have notbeen the absolute indication of their distances or directions of


motion. Some astronomers now say that the red shift is notdue to the Doppler effect at all. The supposed expansion ofthe universe is now believed to be an expansion of time andspace. The space between galaxies is said to be increasing.

Another consideration is that light may have taken a“shortcut” through space. Different types of mathematics anddifferent assumptions and postulates give totally differentconcepts of space and distances in space. What we knowabout space is quite limited. How distances through space arecalculated depends on the calculator’s system of math and hisor her basic set of postulates (assumptions).

Outer space may be straight or it may be curved. If youlike to think outer space is a straight line, you will useEuclidean Geometry and its accompanying assumptions.Euclidean Geometry is used to find vast distances in space. Itscalculations are, for the most part, straight-line calculations.But, what if outer space is not able to be measured withstraight-line from here-to-there-type math? That would meanall the farthest stars could be much closer than the textbooksteach.

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRYThere is still another alternative. Another legitimate way

to measure distances in outer space is by using Riemannianmath. Riemannian math is classified as Non-EuclideanGeometry. It assumes outer space to be curved. Hence Non-Euclidean Geometry produces much smaller distances to thefarthest stars. Niessen (ICR Impact #121) reviewed articles byHarold Slusher (“Age of the Cosmos,” I.C.R. 1980) andWayne Zage (“The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,”Mathematics Magazine 53, Nov. 1980, pp. 289-293). Twenty-seven binary star systems were observed, and it appears thatlight travels in curved paths in deep space. If you convertEuclidean straight-line math into Riemannian curved math,


light could travel from the farthest stars to earth in, asreported by Niessen, 15.71 years! This is a whole lot less thanmillions of years, isn’t it?

Is Riemannian Geometry valid if it shows shorterdistances to the stars? H.S.M. Coxeter published a largelyignored book in 1942 entitled Non-Euclidean Geometry.Coxeter stated, “...we still can’t decide whether the real worldis approximately Euclidean or approximately non-Euclidean.”131 The scientists do not know which is the validway to measure space as it really is! They are not sure justwhat outer space really looks like. They have not been thereand do not know what shape it has. Everything close enoughto our solar system to obtain measurements (though all thesecontain assumptions) appears to have positive curvature. Thatmeans Riemann’s method of figuring distance in space ismore likely to be correct than the Euclidean methods.Niessen, then, has a chance of being correct when hepostulates 15.71 years for light from the farthest star to reach


131 “The full recognition that spherical geometry is itself a kind of non-Euclidean geometry, without parallels, is due to Riemann (1826-1866). He realized thatSaccheri’s hypothesis of the obtuse angle becomes valid as soon as Postulates I, II, andV are modified to read:

I. Any two points determine at least one line.II. A line is unbounded.V. Any two lines in a plane will meet.For a line to be unbounded and yet of finite length, it merely has to be re-entrant,

like a circle. The great circles on a sphere provide a model for the finite lines on a finiteplane, and, when so interpreted, satisfy the modified postulates. But if a line and aplane can each be finite and yet unbounded, why not also an n-dimensional manifold,and in particular the three-dimensional space of the real world? In Riemann’s words of1854: “The unboundedness of space possesses a greater empirical certainty than anyexternal experience. But its infinite extent by no means follows from this; on the otherhand, if we assume independence of bodies from position, and therefore ascribe tospace constant curvature, it must necessarily be finite provided this curvature has everso small a positive value.”

According to the General Theory of Relativity, astronomical space has positivecurvature locally (wherever there is matter), but we cannot tell whether the curvatureof “empty” space is exactly zero or has a very small positive or negative value. In otherwords, we still cannot decide whether the real world is approximately Euclidean orapproximately non-Euclidean.” H. S. M. Coxeter, Non-Euclidean Geometry, 5th ed.(Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1965), pp. 11,12.

planet earth. And if the speed of light has not been constantsince the Beginning, this might also get light to earth muchmore quickly. Scientists recently increased the speed of lightto 300 times its normal speed by passing it through a Caesiumchamber.

Let us not forget what Jeremiah, the prophet of God, said:

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established theworld by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens byhis discretion (Jeremiah 10:12).

Perhaps God made the stars closer to earth with their lightalready here and then he moved the stars away by “stretchingout” the heavens. So instead of the star being made after theBig Bang way out in space, and us having to wait for millionsof years for its light to get here, God made it closer to earthwith its light already here and then moved the star away to itsplace out in space. I believe Humphrys asserts that the“stretching out” of the heaven could have taken place on thefourth day.

If world class physicist, Paul Davies, is correct in hisarticle in Nature [Davies, P.C.W., and Lineweaver, C.H.,“Black Holes Constrain Varying Constants,” Nature 418(6896): 602-603, August 8, 2002] that contends that the speedof light has quite possibly been slowing down, then, if thespeed of light has not been constant, the universe may bequite young! Millions of years of age for stars, and the ideathat these stars are millions of miles away is calculated underthe assumption that the speed of light has always been thesame. The most recent research indicates that time and thespeed of light are NOT CONSTANTS!

What conclusion can we arrive at on the basis of all theabove? You do not have to believe it when some textbook orscientist in a white lab coat tells you that stars are millions oflight-years and perhaps trillions of miles away. There is no


hard, irrefutable evidence here for a 9 to 20 billion year olduniverse. Those stars could very well be billions of light yearsaway. Our Lord has shown us by creating Adam, Eve, trees,animals, etc., fully mature that he can create a star with a fullymature light beam that comes to earth no matter how far awaythat star might be. Perhaps the time to get here is speeded upin outer space, and the speed of light is faster in days gone by!

Where do the 9 to 20 billion years come from? Hubblecame up with the theoretical, mathematical formula formeasuring time back to the initial “Big Bang.” Hiscalculations originally estimated about 18 to 20 billion yearsas the age of the universe. Then, a few years ago, some otherscientists decided Hubble had made a grievous mistake andwas 50% off in his calculations. Thus, the age of the universewas cut in half (from 18 to 20 billion years to 9 to 10 billionyears) by the stroke of a pen. Some scientists still hold to the20 billion year figure. They realize that even 20 billion yearsis statistically not long enough to evolve the universe and allthe diversity it contains.

COMBUSTION ENERGY OF STARSNow, back to some more evidences for a young uni-

verse. Astronomers calculate that certain types of stars mayhave surface temperatures of 90,000ºF. This is “... more than100,000 times the energy coming from our sun. Burningdown at that rate, and clocking backward, the entire universewould have been filled with the mass of these stars just afew thousand years ago!”132

Some evolutionists will object, “But you can’t takecurrent processes and extrapolate back like that.” Well, whatdo evolutionists do to find and publish their old, old dates?The same thing! They evaluate, for example, presentprocesses such as decay rates (½ life), speed of light etc. and


132 Petersen, p. 44.

extrapolate backwards assuming all was the same from thebeginning (2 Peter, Chapter 3, explains to us that all is NOTthe same from the Beginning—that there was one kind ofheaven/earth system before the Flood and another kind ofheaven/earth after the Flood).

BRISTLE-CONE PINE TREESIf the Biblical Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and

destroyed all dry-land plant life, then we would not expect tofind plants that could be accurately dated at older than about4,500 years. The bristle-cone pine tree is such a plant. It hasbeen called the oldest living organism on earth and has beendated at about 5,000 years. Peterson states, “It’s almost asthough all these trees were planted on a virgin Earth just5,000 years ago.”133

Just because a tree has 5,000 rings it does not necessarilymean that the tree is 5,000 years old. For the last three years,at our home in Texas, our trees have had two rings each year.We had a wet spring and then no rain for two and a halfmonths. The trees went initially dormant, and then, with theautumn rains, the Bradford Pear trees came out of dormancyand began to bloom again. This gave them two sets of rings inone year. Bristle-cone pines are very old, but less than 5,000years!

RIVERS ARE YOUNGEvery year the Mississippi River carries tons and tons of

eroded dirt into the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists have beenmeasuring the growth of the Mississippi delta for many years.

At the present rate the entire Mississippi River delta wouldhave accumulated in only 5,000 years. But science acknowledgesthat the river has been even bigger in the past.


133 Ibid., p. 38.

How could this be? Unless of course the North Americancontinent, and all the other continents for that matter, just haven’tbeen in their present positions any longer than that.134

Another river that scientists carefully watch is theNiagara. It also leads to belief in a young earth.

Because the rim of the falls is wearing back at a known rate everyyear, geologists recognize that is has only taken about 5,000years to erode from its original precipice.135

Some measurements have indicated 25,000 years oferosion at pre-hydroelectric rates, while others mention aburied canyon that would require another 10,000 years. All ofthese figures assume a constant amount of water and a steadyrate of erosion. But, after observing the catastrophe of MountSt Helens, we know that the initial run off of the Flood slurrywaters could carve a deep canyon in a matter of hours or days.Often large chunks of the dirt and rock under waterfalls, likethe Niagara, will break off, yielding even younger ages.Suppose that 200 years from now you decided to calculate theage of Niagara Falls, but you did not know that in 2002 a hugesection of rock had broken away from the edge of the falls.You would assume that it took thousands of years to wearaway all that rock from the falls’ edge, but it happened in aninstant. You would date the falls much older than it actuallywas. This type of mistake is common when scientists attemptto date things.

THE RECEDING MOONAdding to the evidence for a young earth is our receding

moon. Scientists know how fast our moon is moving awayfrom earth (about two inches per year).


134 Ibid., p. 38.135 Ibid., p. 39.

Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at M.I.T.,writes:

The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a majorproblem.136

Dennis Petersen continues:

...working it back would mean the moon and Earth would betouching only two billion years ago. Of course, that’s ridiculous.Another way to look at it is this: At the present rate and startingfrom a realistic distance of separation between the two, if theEarth is five billion years old the moon should be out of sight bynow!137

New ideas are constantly being presented about the originof our moon, such as our moon arose because of a collisionbetween planet earth and a planetesimal. As creationists, weneed to be aware of new ideas, but always subject them to theBible. The Bible says:

And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule theday, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the starsalso (Genesis 1:16).

God says he made the moon on the same day he made thesun, the fourth day of the creation week. He doesn’t tell usthat he made the moon by means of some collision with aplanetesimal like the latest theories claim.

MOON ROCKSWhen the first moon rocks were dated in the early 1970’s,

NASA published the age of the moon rocks at 4 to 4.5 billionyears. Several years and many rocks later, they published a


136 Louis B. Slichter, “Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth’sRotation,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 8 No. 14 (1964), 4281-4288.

137 Petersen, p. 43.

range of dates for the rocks of our moon at 3 to 4.5 billionyears. This author called one of the geologists who datedthose rocks and the conversation went something like this:

“I noticed in a recent news release that the dates of the moonrocks have been adjusted to a range of 1.5 billion years. That’s apretty big difference in the dates! Was the range any greater thanthat?”

“Oh yes, the range went from several thousand years to over20 billion years.”

“Well then, why did NASA only publish the 1.5 billion yearrange, instead of the full 20+ billion year range?”

“We did not want to confuse the public. We know the moonis about 3 to 4.5 billion years old, so we called the dates outsideof that range discordant dates and threw them out.”

“Assumptions determine conclusions” and somescientists must have pre-decided (assumed) that the moon isabout 3 to 4.5 billion years old before any rocks were everbrought back from the moon. What if, in spite of theirpresuppositional belief, the several thousand year dates werecorrect and not discordant? Well, that locks in SpecialCreation and eliminates the possibility of evolution thatrequires millions of years. Apparently that was unacceptableto NASA thirty years ago.

Or, what if the 20+ billion years dates were correct? That,in effect, demolishes Hubble’s math, and the time of the BigBang is once again up for grabs. These scientists might objectand say, “But we use a bell-shaped curve to arrive at ourdates.” Well, what if the assumptions, which are built intotheir dating system, skew the curve one way or another?We’ve already seen that the three major assumptionsinvariably included when scientists date rocks are not valid.

You might ask an astronomer where our moon and itsrocks came from. Some fanciful answers will be forthcoming!Evolutionary scientists do not know from whence cometh our


moon. A creationist believes that the God of the Bible createdthe moon, and the sun and stars as well, on the fourth day ofthe creation week (Genesis 1:14-19). There is no hard,factual, scientific information that can refute a young age forthe moon. All old ages given for the moon are not accuratebecause the assumptions behind the dating techniques are notrealistic.

SHORT-TERM COMETSFrom time to time, comets pass by the earth. Not only can

scientists not tell us where our moon came from, they alsocannot tell us about the origin of short-term comets. These arecomets that astronomers calculate have lifetimes of no morethan 100,000 years. If the universe is somewhere between 9and 20 billion years old, and the astral bodies were formed asthe result of the “Big Bang,” evolution is left in theembarrassing dilemma of having to postulate theories for theorigin of short-term comets, which it cannot prove. You haveto admire the imagination of these folks, though. Someactually believe that Jupiter spits comets out of highvolcanoes. The only problem is that the short-lived comets arenot made of the right stuff to even come from Jupiter, andtheir orbit is in no way oriented to enable them to refer toJupiter as “mother.” Scott Huse says:

Comets journey around the sun and are assumed to be the sameage as the solar system. Each time a comet orbits the sun, a smallpart of its mass is ‘boiled off.’ Careful studies indicate that theeffect of this dissolution process on short-term comets wouldhave totally dissipated them in about 10,000 years. Based on thefact that there are still numerous comets orbiting the sun with nosource of new comets known to exist, we can deduce that oursolar system cannot be much older than 10,000 years. To date, nosatisfactory explanation has been given to discredit this evidencefor a youthful solar system.138


138 Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 28, 29.

One idea for these young comets is that there is somethingcalled an “Oort cloud” out beyond Pluto’s orbit that generatescomets (not yet seen). Another guess is that as stars pass bythey “kick” comets into our solar system. I choose to stickwith the Bible. God made the contents of the heavens on thefourth day about 6,000 years ago!

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELDAn examination of the Earth’s magnetic field suggests

that Earth cannot be very old, since the Earth’s magnetic fieldis losing its strength. Dr. Thomas Barnes has done volumes ofwork on the depletion of Earth’s magnetic field. Theconclusion of his work establishes the age of the Earth at lessthan 10,000 years.139 Naturally, the evolutionary communityhas proclaimed Barnes’ work invalid, but Barnes answerstheir charges quite simply and effectively in the ICR Impact#122, August 1983, entitled “Earth’s Magnetic Age: TheAchilles Heel of Evolution.” The earth’s magnetic field isgetting measurably weaker. Ten thousand years ago it wouldhave been too strong to support life. If life could not haveexisted 10,000 years ago because of the super strength of theearth’s magnetic field, then evolution had no time to occur.

Some objections have arisen about Barnes’ work.Geologic processes seem to indicate earth’s magnetic fieldmay have reversed rapidly many times in the past. Dr. JohnBaumgardner has suggested that during the cataclysmictectonic movements of earth during the Flood, earth’smagnetism was unstable.140


139 For more see: “Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” T.G.Barnes, I.C.R. Technical Monograph No. 4, 1973; also ICR Impact #100, October1981.

140 For further reading you might begin with J. R. Baumgardner, “TheImperative of Non-Stationary Natural Law in Relation to Noah’s Flood,” CreationResearch Society Quarterly 27:3(1990) 98-100.

It seems to me that we must believe magnetism to bestable (allowing for slow entropy) since shortly after theFlood. If earth’s magnetic pole is constantly moving aroundand gaining and losing strength, there arises a huge problem.How does the Pacific Golden Plover navigate from Alaska toHawaii over 4,000 miles of ocean water with no landmarks?How does the Humpback whale find its way from the Arcticto the equatorial seas? Magnetite has been found in theHumpback and many researchers have reached a consensusthat these and many other migratory creatures utilize earth’smagnetism as their guidance system. If earth’s magnetismwere fickle, then we would have many migratory animalscompletely lost! But if earth’s magnetism were unstableduring The Flood (or some point prior to The Flood), it wouldcertainly interfere with an evolutionary view that theseanimals gradually established their migratory routes.

As Dr. Russell Humphreys states: “...the earth’s magneticfield certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely lessthan 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-valuebiblical age of 6,000 years” (See www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm).

OUR SHRINKING SUNRecently, a controversy has arisen over the shrinking of

our sun. If the figures of John Eddy and Adam Boornazian arecorrect (“Analysis of Historical Data Suggest the Sun isShrinking,” Physics Today, Vol. 32 No. 9, September 1979),our sun would have been too hot for life to exist on Earth even1,000,000 years ago. This would, in effect, knock out thepossibility of the vast expanses of time required for evolution.Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists have jumped on thisone to prove Eddy was mistaken. Others now claim that themeasurements of the sun (measured when the planet Mercurycrosses in front of the sun each year) prove the size of the sun


www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm

has not changed. We will have to wait to see how thisdevelops.141

In any event, there is a growing body of evidence that oursun is quite young! According to ICR Impact #276(www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm), evidences for a youngsun include: The fundamental oscillation of the sun matchesthe model for a young sun, the solar neutrino emission is thatof a young sun and the lithium and beryllium abundance inthe sun is consistent with that of a young sun. This evidencein no way surprises a young earth creationist, since we knowthat the Creator God of the Bible created the sun, moon andstars with their useful and necessary relationships to planetearth about 6,000 years ago. For more about the sun andgravitational collapse as opposed to thermonuclear reactions,read p. 58-61 in Dr. Theodore Rybka’s book, Geophysical andAstronomical Clocks.142 In the back, he has some tableslisting maximum possible ages for things such as: dispersionof meteor showers—10,000 years; rings of Saturn—114,000years; dust in interplanetary space—10,000,000 years;bridges between quasars—7000 years; fast burn rate of hotstars—100,000 years; etc. He lists many more evidences thatrequire a universe much younger than billions of years!

RADIOHALOSSupport for a young earth is offered by Robert V. Gentry

through his studies of radiohalos (little halos that surround aspeck of radioactive material) in coalified wood.


141 Science Held Hostage is a book by three men from Calvin College whoappear to be theistic evolutionists. They do not believe in a young earth. The“evolution/creation in six days” controversy is not an issue to cause the elect to losefellowship with each other [Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and ClarenceMenninga, Science Held Hostage (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press, 1988)].

142 Dr. Theodore Rybka in his book, Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks(Irvine, CA: American Writing and Publishing Co., 1993), refutes the arguments ofHugh Ross and Van Till, Young and Menninga by showing that the sun’s heat isgenerated by gravitational collapse and not nuclear fusion.

www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm

Evolutionists believe the coal deposits in the ColoradoPlateau to be hundreds of millions of years old. Yet, Gentry’sradio-halo “clock” suggests a time period of only a fewthousand years.143 Gentry discovered microscopic bits ofuranium in these coal deposits. The effect of the radioactiveuranium on the coal was to produce radiation halos in thecoal.

Paul Ackerman comments on Gentry’s radiohalo work:

As a radioactive bit decays, radiation extends in all directionsinto surrounding coal for a small, yet precise distance determinedby the particle energy of the radiation. Over time this emittedradiation will change the color of the coal, forming a distinctsphere around the bit of uranium in the center. These tiny spheresof discolored rock surrounding a microscopic radioactive centerare termed “radiohalos.” Such radiohalos are Robert Gentry’sspecialty.144

How does the bit of radioactive uranium get into the coal toform the halos? Ackerman continues:

Regarding the radioactive center, a bit of uranium has, atsome time in the past, before the wood material was hardenedinto coal, migrated into its present position. As the uranium bitundergoes radioactive decay, a form of lead is created. Once thecoal has hardened and the uranium bit has been cemented into afixed position, this lead isotope begins to accumulate at the site....

Gentry has found that the uranium/lead ratios in theColorado Plateau coal formation indicate that this formation isonly a few thousand years old.145

The halos form around the radioactive particles in the coaland indicate a young age of only a few thousand years for the


143 Robert V. Gentry, et al., “Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New EvidenceRelating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,” Science, 194(October 15, 1976), 315-317.

144 Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All: Exciting Evidences forRecent Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 104, 105.

145 Ibid., Ackerman, P. 105.

coal. The coal of the Colorado Plateau was probably formedduring the Flood judgment of Noah’s day as God wasdestroying heaven-and-earth system #1. One type ofPolonium has a short half-life of three minutes. Another typeis measured in nanoseconds. For these bits of material toinscribe themselves in rock and coal with their characteristic“tattoos” something had to be happening with flash speed!

Gentry also found halos of Polonium in Precambriangranite rock. These are supposedly the oldest rocks on earth.Precambrian rock is called the “basement” rock of earth sinceit is thought to be more ancient than all other rock. Ackermancontinues to review Gentry’s work:

The question Gentry has raised for evolutionists is how thepolonium bits and their resulting halos came to be in thebasement granites....

The enigma is this: If the granite is hardened, the poloniumcannot travel to its intrusion location. But if the granite is nothardened, no halo can form. Therefore, Gentry argues that thetime lapse from a permeable, molten state to the present rockstate for these precambrian granites had to be extremely brief.How brief? One of the polonium isotopes studies by Gentry hasa half-life of three minutes! Another has a half-life of only 164microseconds!

In the evolutionary model, the time required for the coolingand solidification of these granites is millions and millions ofyears. Gentry believes these halos to constitute powerfulevidence against evolution and its presumed vast time spans. Hebelieves these halos speak of a very rapid formation of thesecrustal rocks.146

Radiohalos in Precambrian basement rock may indicate ayoung age for the earth’s “oldest” rocks [for more read:Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, see footnote #123].Walter T. Brown, Jr., (In The Beginning), lists about thirtytime clocks for the age of the earth that yield an age of a few


146 Ibid., Ackerman, pp. 108-110.

thousand years. He mentions that an analysis of the gases(such as helium) in the atmosphere yields a young age (fewthousand years) for the age of the atmosphere.147 Helium gasis found in deep, hot rocks. If these rocks were even onebillion years old the helium would have escaped, but it is stillretained in the rock. This means that the rock can be only afew thousand years old.148

RIVER SEDIMENTSRiver sediments and erosion rates indicate that the earth

could not have existed as it is for millions of years.149 [Seealso: Dr. Henry Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible (GrandRapids: World Publishing, 1995), Appendix 5.]

PLANETARY RINGSA study of the rings around several planets seems to

demand a young age for our solar system:

The rings that are orbiting Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter andNeptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn’srings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about10,000 years. Since this has not happened, planetary rings areprobably quite young...

Jupiter and Saturn each radiate more than twice the energythey receive from the sun. Venus also radiates too much energy.Calculations show it is very unlikely that this energy comes fromnuclear fusion, radioactive decay, gravitational contraction orphase changes within those planets. The only other conceivableexplanation is that these planets have not existed long enough tocool off.150


147 Brown, In the Beginning, p. 16.148 See: R. V. Gentry, “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons” Geophysical

Research Letters 9 (October 1982) pp. 1129-1130.149 Brown, p. 16.150 Brown, p. 18.

STAR CLUSTERSThe existence of star clusters hints at a young universe.

Immense clusters of stars are traveling through space, we aretold, at supersonic speeds. Scientists believe that gravityholds these fast moving star clusters together. But scientistsdo not know how these star clusters could hold together formillions of years, while traveling at such high speeds. Theyshould have “unclustered” and moved apart by now,especially with the effects of entropy. But they are still in acluster. The sole answer to this dilemma for the evolutionistappears to be special creation a few thousand years ago, not a“Big Bang” billions of years ago.

MOUNT ST. HELENSWhen all other evidence fails to prove a very old heaven-

and-earth system, evolutionists go back to rocks and rockformations, which supposedly require very long spans of timeto form. The eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980,and the rapid formation of geologic systems around it, ischallenging the claims of historical geology. Dr. Steve Austinand Institute for Creation Research staff personnel have beendocumenting the phenomena of Mount St. Helens since itsinitial eruption. Some surprising results of the volcanic blastare being observed.

Up to 600 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 atMount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary airblast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mud flows,air fall and stream water... Mount St. Helens teaches us that thestratified layers commonly characterizing geological formationscan form very rapidly by flow processes.151


151 Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., “Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism,” ICR Impact#157, July 1986, p. 1, 2. Dr. Austin also has an excellent video on this topic.

In other words, what geologists may have thought tookthousands or hundreds of thousands of years to form as acolumn of rock, in fact, formed at Mount St. Helens (as thescientists watched) in less than eleven years! Perhaps eons oftime are not necessary to form the layers of rock after all.

One more fascinating phenomenon of the Mount St.Helens cataclysmic explosion is the apparent formation of thebeginnings of polystrate fossils in five years. In 1985,scientists discovered that water-soaked trees were floatingwith root end down (toward the bottom of the lake) in SpiritLake. These trees:

...are randomly spaced not clumped together, over the bottom ofthe lake, again having the appearance of being an in situ forest [aforest that grew there, Ed.].

Scuba investigation of the upright deposited trunks showsthat some are already solidly buried by sedimentation, with morethan three feet of sediment around their bases. This proved thatthe upright trees were deposited at different times, with theirroots buried at different levels. If found buried in thestratigraphic record (rocks), these trees might be interpreted asmultiple forests which grew on different levels over periods ofthousands of years. The Spirit Lake upright deposited stumps,therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting“petrified forests” in the stratigraphic record.152

What does this all mean? There is a bank of polystratafossils (one tree goes up through several layers or strata ofsedimentary rock) in Nova Scotia over 2,000 feet thick withtrees straight up and down at different levels up through therocks. Geologists have claimed that a formation like the NovaScotia formation would take hundreds of thousands of yearsto form. After observing the Spirit Lake water-soaked trees,scientists are reconsidering. Perhaps it does not take as longas they originally thought to form polystrate fossils. Those


152 Austin, ICR Impact #157, p. iii.

trees in Spirit Lake are lining up and getting buried in whatshould become sedimentary rock—but just a few years havegone by, not hundreds of thousands of years!

The Spirit Lake trees seem to be showing a fossil forest inproduction. An example of an existing fossil forest (similar toSpirit lake) is in Yellowstone National Park and is a populartourist attraction. Based on observations of the Spirit lakeupright trees, the Yellowstone fossil forest may be only a fewthousand years old, not millions of years old as taught by thePark Service.

INSTANT PETROLEUMOn August 18, 1986, U.S. News and World Report stated:

“Last year in the Gulf of California, MIT’s Edmond foundthat the action of hot vents was turning dead plankton in thesediment into petroleum—a process that normally takes atleast 10 million years squeezed into an instant.” Obviously, itdoes not require millions of years to form oil if oil has beenproven to form in an instant. Could it be that the earth is notas old as we have been told?

With so many observable evidences for a young earth,which can only be answered by an earth that once wasgreenhouse warm and suddenly (about the time of the Flood)became permanently frozen at the poles, why do evolutionistsstill cling to their old earth/local flood theories? Only oneanswer seems plausible: they do not want to submitthemselves in humble obedience to their Creator. They refuseto accept the Lord Jesus Christ even though He revealsHimself through His creation. Evolution from one cell to manis a lie and a foolish speculation of men in rebellion againsttheir Creator.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truthin unrighteousness;


Because that which may be known of God is manifest inthem; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things thatare made, even his eternal power and divine Godhead; sothat they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified himnot as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in theirimaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.[Romans 1:18-22 (Emphasis added)].

He hath made the earth by his power,He hath established the world by his wisdom,And hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion(Jeremiah 10:12).




#9

The Chuckwalla Lizard

“Chuckwalla lizards are large, pot-bellied lizards whichwear a loose, baggy skin. Though the skin appears to be muchtoo large, it is just exactly what this lizard needs when anenemy approaches. You see, when an enemy comes near thechuckwalla, the lizard runs very quickly to a rock crevice andhides in it. In the crack of the rock, the chuckwalla swallowsair and blows up like a balloon. When the enemy, arrives thechuckwalla is safely wedged in the crack. Though it is withineasy reach, it is safe. Years ago, the Indians of our desertSouthwest learned how to catch the chuckwalla. They piercedits body with an arrow to let out the air; then the Indians couldeasily remove the lizard from its haven. Man is probably theonly enemy of the chuckwalla lizard from whom it is notcompletely safe.

Of course, the desert is very dry. Some chuckwallas livewhere there may be only a single rain shower in a whole year.In these arid places the chuckwalla generally lives a dormantlife for most of the year. It estivates, or sleeps, for all butabout five months of the year.

While living actively, the chuckwalla eats whatever juicyplants it can find. Special glands store the water from thegreenery, and the chuckwalla grows fat from its food.Generally, chuckwallas are dormant from August throughMarch.

249

Many desert plants absorb much salt from the soil inwhich they grow. The chuckwalla receives enough salt fromits food to kill an ordinary animal. The salt would kill thechuckwalla, too, were it not for its special salt-removingglands. These glands are located in the nostrils of thechuckwalla, and, as the salt builds up on the glands, the lizardoccasionally sneezes. The sneeze expels the crystallized saltwhich the glands have filtered out of the lizard’s bloodstream.

The cold-blooded chuckwalla sleeps late. But when itarises, it must warm up in a hurry. Desert nights and earlymornings are often very cold. Cold-blooded creatures areslow and sluggish when they are cold, and cold lizards areeasy to catch. For this reason, the chuckwalla wears a dark-colored, heat-absorbing skin. The sun warms the lizard beforethe air warms up. Later in the day, the lizard’s skin changes toa heat-reflecting light color because the chuckwalla must notget too hot either. The rationality we find when we examinethe chuckwalla’s body structure compels us to recognize itsDesigner. Only God, Who is an intelligent, rational Being,can account for the order and design evident in thechuckwalla lizard and all of nature.”153


153 DeWitt Steele, Science: Order and Reality (Pensacola, Fl: A Beka BookPublications, 1980), p. 138. Christian parents, do you realize that there are sciencebooks that your children can be studying that defend the creationist’s perspective andsupport the teachings of the Bible?

10DECEPTION

IN THE TEXTBOOKS

Are there any fraudulent ideas promoted in theteachings and texts of the evolutionists? Jonathan

Wells, Ph.D. (molecular and cell biology), from UC-Berkeley,lists a few of the known frauds in evolutionary teachings:

We all remember them from biology class: the experimentthat created the “building blocks of life” in a tube; theevolutionary “tree,” rooted in the primordial slime and branchingout into animal and plant life. Then there were the similar bonestructures of, say, a bird’s wing and a man’s hand, the pepperedmoths, and Darwin’s finches. And don’t forget, Haeckelembryos.

As it happens, all of these examples, as well as many others,purportedly standing as evidence of evolution, turn out to beincorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just slightly mistaken. On thesubject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massivedistortions and even faked evidence. Nor are we only talkingabout high-school textbooks that some might excuse (butshouldn’t) for adhering to a lower standard. Also guilty are someof the most prestigious and widely used college texts, such asDouglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, and the latest editionof the graduate-level textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell,coauthored by the president of the National Academy ofSciences, Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” istaken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks atleast, is so thin it’s almost invisible.154

154 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator,December 2000/January 2001, pp. 19-20. See also his book, Icons of Evolution:Science or Myth (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2000).

251

THE PEPPERED MOTHThe peppered moth is no longer believed to be an example

of natural selection and evolution-in-progress even though itremains in most major textbooks. The idea presented in thetextbooks is that during the Industrial Revolution, smoke andsoot from the factories accumulated on the tree trunks wherethe peppered moths lived. Because of the ash on the treetrunks, the light colored moths were less visible to the birds,so the birds were eating more of the dark colored moths. Thisis taught to the students as an example of natural selection(one of the primary engines of evolution) in action. Therewere light and dark colored moths before, during and after theIndustrial Revolution. The surprising truth is that thepeppered moths never lived on tree trunks as pictured in ourtexts. Those pictures that display the moths on an ash-coveredtree trunk, with the light moth barely visible and the darkmoth sticking out like lunch for the nearest bird, are a fraud!Peppered moths do not even rest on tree trunks. Dead mothswere glued to the tree trunk for the textbook pictures!155

These fraudulent texts are deceiving our children!

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,deceiving and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).

ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENYDidn’t we all learn that “ontogeny recapitulates

phylogeny?” This is the idea that, for instance, the humanembryo goes through a fish stage, reptile stage, etc., whiledeveloping in the mother’s womb. Remember those sciencebook pictures of the embryos of different creatures and theyall looked alike as they developed in eggs or wombs? Well


155 See Creation ex Nihilo, vol. 21, No.2, June-August 1999, p. 56; TheWashington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8; and The Calgary Herald, March 21, 1999,p. D3.

this may rankle you a bit, but those drawings of embryos wereproven to be false in the 1880’s!156 Ernst Haeckel wasdisciplined by his academic peers in the 1880’s for adding andomitting features and fudging the scale “to exaggeratesimilarities among species.” His drawings reduced the size ofsome embryos as much as ten times to make them looksimilar to other unrelated species.157

This Haeckel embryo FRAUD continues in our childrens’texts today with full knowledge of the text’s authors and theprofessors and teachers who teach it! One such text at thecollege level is Life, Fourth Edition (copyright 2002).(Parents, this book is the Biology text at a “Christian” college.It teaches evolution as fact and equates creationism withastrology, extrasensory perception, fortune telling, healingcrystals and psychic phenomena on page 10). This book dealswith the Haeckel’s drawings in such a way that after statingthat Haeckel took “a bit of artistic license” and that hisdrawings “did not represent scale,” it says, “The data showthat there really are similarities in embryonic structures,supporting the concept of common ancestry.”158 This writerwould agree that there are similarities in the externalappearance of embryos a few hours to a few days old. Howmuch difference can there be between one-cell, two-cell, four-cell, sixteen-cell, etc., embryos developing in such a way thatthey, even as totally different organisms, can share a commonatmosphere and food chain?

Even the questions at the bottom of page 329 of Life bringthe student’s thinking back to the Haeckel idea. Question 4

Deception in the Textbooks 253

156 See: New Scientist, September 6, 1997, p.23; and Science, vol. 277,September 5, 1997.

157 Also see: M. Richardson, et al., “There is no Highly Conserved Stage in theVertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development,”Anatomy and Embryology, 1997, 196(2): 91-106.

158 Ricki Lewis, Douglas Gaffin, Marielle Hoefnagels and Bruce Parker, Life(Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002), p.329.

reads: “Why do vertebrate embryos appear similar, but thenbecome very different adult animals?” What is the answer thetext writers are hoping the student will arrive at? Is it,“Embryos appear similar because they are embryologicallyretracing their evolutionary history as they develop?”

At the top of page 330 of Life, the student is againreminded of the similarities of embryos. Figure 17.13 isentitled “Embryo Resemblances.” Figure 17.13 reproduces aset of Haeckel’s drawings and a set of photographs of theactual embryos (The actual photographs were, I believe,produced by British embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson in1997, although Life does not reference the photographs).

There are two horizontal rows of pictures in the text. Thetop row of five different embryos (fish, salamander, chicken,rabbit and human) is the reproduced Richardson photographs.The second horizontal row is the Haeckel fraudulentdrawings. There is very little resemblance between the photosand the drawings. Also, the text does not tell the student if theembryos of the different organisms are at different stages ofdevelopment or that all embryos are at the same day and stageof development. The sizes of all the embryos are fairly equalin the text pictures, which also give the impression thatembryos of rabbits and humans are not all that different!

If the textbook, Life, is truly attempting to dispel the mythof ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny as depicted in Haeckel’sfraudulent drawings and still believed by many evolutionists,then Figure 17.13 is mislabeled. Instead of being entitled“Embryo Resemblances,” it should be titled “Haeckel’sFraudulent Drawings Compared to the Real Embryos.”

Even the explanatory paragraph of Figure 17.13 ismisleading. The first sentence reads: “Vertebrate embryosappear alike early in development, reflecting the similaritiesof basic processes as cells divide and specialize, as the figureshows for five species.” Well, the only embryos that look


alike in Figure 17.13 are the reproduced Haeckel drawings,not the Richardson photographs of the real embryos! As amatter of fact, there is a ten-fold difference in the size of thesalamander drawing of Haeckel compared to the photo of thereal salamander as reported in Science, September 5, 1997.This huge difference in size is not pictured, nor is itmentioned in the Life textbook caption of Figure 17.13. Themessage that comes across in Life is that embryos are allpretty much alike and that is what we would expect since weall came from fish to amphibian to reptile to birds andmammals. When a person has on their “old universe”evolutionary worldview glasses it appears that they skew thefacts and permit themselves to take “a bit of artistic license.”

Toward the end of the text, Life, the authors write: “Todaymost biologists reject the biogenetic law, as Haeckel’s view iscalled” (page 778). This sentence is at the far bottom of theleft hand page as you look at the text. Your eye immediatelyscans up to the top of the next page (page 779) where the firstthing you see is Figure 40.2 entitled: “EmbryonicResemblances.” And what to your wondering eyes shouldimmediately appear but a huge chart, seven inches wide bysix inches high, of the embryo pictures almost identical toHaeckel’s fraudulent drawings. The authors of Life havemade their disclaimer and covered their tracks, but thepicture they leave with the student’s mind is the sameerroneous idea that Ernst Haeckel promoted in the1880’s!

Christian parents, have you ever taken the time to look atthe textbooks your Christian children are forced to study? Youwill be jolted to reality, if you do!

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vaindeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of theworld, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).


VESTIGIAL ORGANSWhen this author was majoring in biology at Bucknell

University back in the early 1960’s, we were taught that thehuman body had more than 100 vestigial organs. (Actuallythe figure 180 was frequently tossed around.) These weresupposedly useless organs and tissues left over from someevolutionary ancestors. Times have changed.

The only organ remaining that modern science has notfound a current function for is the male nipple. Even this lastvestige must now be deleted from the list with the advent ofnipple piercing (a function?!).

In recent weeks I have skimmed six different biologytextbooks looking for examples of “vestigial organs.” Theyall had pictures very similar to Haeckel’s with arrowspointing to what the textbooks call “gill slits.” By calling thepharyngeal pouches “gill slits” or even “pharyngeal gill slits,”a wrong idea is planted in the student’s head. Gills are usedfor breathing. If evolution is true and humans evolved overmillions of years from fishy ancestors, then it is only logicalthat humans should still retain some vestiges, in ourembryonic days, of those epochs millions of years ago whenwe were fish. One of those vestiges of ages gone by is theformation of “gill slits” in the human embryo. Except for onething—gill slits in the developing human in their mother’swomb are never used for breathing underwater and actuallyhave no relationship at all to fish gills.

The “gill slits” in humans are correctly called pharyngealpouches. They form part of our middle ear, our parathyroidglands and our thymus gland. The evolutionists want tobelieve we humans came from fish so they label part of thedeveloping human baby “gill slits,” even though thesepharyngeal pouches in humans have absolutely nothing to dowith breathing under water while we are in our mother’swomb or after we are born.


Tonsils are not vestigial. They are not leftover from someancient ancestor. They do have a function. Tonsils are part ofour immune system, especially during our infancy. Thirdmolars are quite functional in most people with someCaucasians being a common exception.

And another thing: these same textbooks have pictures ofhuman embryos with part of the little baby labeled the “yolksac.” If we humans came from fish and reptiles, as theevolutionists teach, then we probably have something leftoverfrom our reptile days when we came out of an egg. This is theorgan that is labeled on the human embryos in the textbooksthe “yolk sac.” But this organ is in no way related to orresembles a fish or reptile egg. It has been mislabeled as ayolk sac to promote evolutionary images in the mind of thereader. This special organ made by the God of the Bible is thebaby human’s blood-forming organ and the textbooks shouldrightly call it what it is. It seems to me that we should usecorrect labels in our textbooks. But, let us never forget that weare in Satan’s world system and it is built on deception. Satanis the father of lies!

We each have our own blood type, and it may not be thesame as our mother’s. When we are too tiny to have bones,but we still need blood to carry the nutrients throughout ourlittle bodies, where does the blood come from? Our mother’sblood does not go directly from her arteries into our arteries.As a matter of fact, we may have different types of bloodaltogether that would fight each other if they mixed together.So, God made the blood-forming organ to make each baby’sspecial blood until the baby’s bones develop enough maturityto take over the blood-making duties.

We know a family that the mother has Type O blood.When she was pregnant with her first child, whose blood wasType A, some of that baby’s blood accidentally leaked intothe mother’s blood system. As a result, the mother built up


antibodies in her blood against Type A blood. Then themother got pregnant with the second baby. The second babyalso had Type A blood. Some of the mother’s blood leakedinto the baby’s circulatory system, and the mother’santibodies began killing the baby’s blood cells. The doctorcalled this an ABO incompatibility reaction. That baby wasvery sick until it was cleansed of all of the mother’santibodies.

Vestigial organs are not vestigial. They have functions.Some organs can be surgically removed from humans (forexample the appendix, which is part of our immune systemwhen we are babies) because the Creator, the Lord Jesus, builtbackup systems into our miraculous bodies.

...thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praisethee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelousare thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well (Psalm139:13b, 14).

NEANDERT(H)AL MANOrthodontist Jack Cuozzo, in his well-documented book,

Buried Alive (Master Books, 1998), exposes the fraudulentdepictions of the Neandertal skulls in the models andtextbook pictures that our children must study. Dr. Cuozzotook cephalometric radiographic pictures of the Neandertalskulls and made a startling discovery. All the models andpictures of Neandertal skulls, that we have access to, havebeen altered.

When you go to the orthodontist, and he takes one ofthose x-rays of your head that allow him to make specialmeasurements, it is a “cephalometric” radiograph. With thisx-ray picture, he can precisely establish the way your teethshould come together (occlusion) in relationship to your jawjoint (temporomandibular joint). Dr. Cuozzo was able to


precisely locate the position of Neandertal’s teeth inrelationship to his (or her) jaw joint with these radiographs.

His startling discovery was that in every picture andmodel we have, the lower jaw had been dislocated and thrustforward as much as an inch to give the erroneous impressionthat Neandertals had a lower face that stuck out (prognathism)like a monkey’s lower jaw. When Dr. Cuozzo put the jaw backwhere it belonged, the Neandertals had a facial profile likemodern man!

So God created man in his own image, in the image of Godcreated he him; male and female created he them…And Godsaw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was verygood. And the evening and morning were the sixth day(Genesis 1:27, 31).

THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE OF LIFEThose textbook pictures of the “tree” with a “simple” cell

at the base and then lines going up into more and morecomplex plants and animals are a fraud. Take one of thosepictures and erase the connecting trunk and branches. Whatyou have left is a bunch of plants and animals scattered overa page that have no apparent familial relationship to eachother at all. Some very creative evolutionists came up withthese “tree of life” pictures to create the illusion that all livingorganisms are related to each other. These misleadingtextbook pictures have been successfully used to convincepeople that evolution is true and all living things areconnected.

The reason they have the empty trunk and branches, withanimals and plants only at the tips, is because the in-betweenforms (transitional forms) are nowhere to be found. These arecalled The Missing Links. The Missing Links are calledmissing links, first and foremost, because they are missing.They are not there! So the textbooks draw in the connecting


lines to give us the illusion that the missing links are not reallymissing. This is textbook fraud! As the late Dr. Stephen JayGould wrote in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms [As far as this writer cantell, all Gould is saying with these big words is that the missinglinks are, in reality, actually missing. I think the missing linkshave been renamed “transitional forms” by the evolutionistsbecause they do not appear to be as missing when the word“transitional” is utilized. But they are still missing. No one hasfound a direct link between fish and amphibian or cold-bloodedreptile to warm-blooded mammal, etc.—Ed.] in the fossil recordpersists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionarytrees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodesof their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, notthe evidence of fossils.

So the textbook pictures of the “tree of life” show fullyformed animals and plants, which are not evolving out ofanything or into anything. In reality, they show exactly whatthe Bible teaches: God created each life-form after its ownkind and there is nothing in between (except the imaginationand inferences of the evolutionist).

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herbyielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so….”

And God created great whales, and every living creaturethat moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: andGod saw it was good.... And God made the beasts after hiskind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing thatcreepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that itwas good (Genesis 1:11, 21, 25).

THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFEIf you went to college in the fifties, you will remember the

cheering professors when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey


announced that they had formed the building blocks of life intheir laboratory. Dr. Wells writes:

There were problems, however. Scientists were never able toget beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordialenvironment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not asmall step, or a couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassabledivide.

The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment, however,came in the 1970’s, when scientists began to conclude that theEarth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the mixture of gasesused by Miller and Urey. Instead of being what scientists call a“reducing,” or hydrogen rich environment, the Earth’s earlyatmosphere probably consisted of gases released by volcanoes.Today there is near consensus among geochemists on this point.But put those volcanic gases in the Miller-Urey apparatus, andthe experiment doesn’t work—in other words, no “buildingblocks” of life.

What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact? By andlarge, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-Ureyexperiment.... [But] they don’t tell students that the researchersthemselves now acknowledge that the explanation still eludesthem.159

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (holdback, suppress) the truth in unrighteousness.... Because that,when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neitherwere thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, andtheir foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to bewise, they became fools (Romans 1:18, 21, 22).

SOME CONCLUDING COMMENTS TO THIS CHAPTERListed here are a few documented frauds foisted on our

children in their textbooks and by their teachers who believewith unquestioning faith in the unsupported theory ofmacroevolution. Our children are being taught the religious


159 Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” p.20.

worldview of Humanism (and Marxism) with itsindispensable foundation—evolution. It is high time theseperpetrators of fraud are held accountable! Why is this kind ofblatant fraud winked at and tolerated by the esteemed ranks ofacademia?

The conflict between the ideas of creation and those ofevolution are rooted in a major clash of worldviews. Ourworldview is our basic set of beliefs. The values that we holddear are a direct result of our worldview. Proverbs 23:7 tellsus that “...For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Whatwe believe about our existence will either spring up out of abiblical Christian worldview or out of one of the humanisticworldviews with their foundation of atheism and a billions-of-years-old universe.

Evolutionists and Creationists study exactly the samefossils. There is not a creationist set of fossils and an entirelydifferent set of evolutionist fossils! The same holds true forthe study of living animals. A creationist will not studyanimals that are any different from the animals examined bythe evolutionist. We both study the same fossils, animals anduniverse. So, how can such widely different ideas (creationideas versus evolution ideas) be gotten when educated peoplestudy the exact, same information? How can two Ph.D.’sgraduate from the same university and one believes in asupernatural creation and the other believes in naturalisticevolution? The answer lies in their worldview. Both peoplehave deeply religious convictions relating to their beliefsabout origins. If there is no God, a person is forced tospeculate about origins and how we might have gotten herethrough godless, naturalistic processes. Your worldviewglasses determine your beliefs about origins.

OUR IDEAS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES!


OUR WORLDVIEW ASSUMPTIONSDETERMINE OUR CONCLUSIONS!

One set of beliefs gives the God of the Bible all the glory.The other belief systems give all the glory to man or to“Mother Nature.” The fraud and deception of the evolutionarycommunity robs our Heavenly Father of His glory and stealsthe praise reserved for Him alone (Isaiah 48:11)! These falseworldviews lead us away from the simplicity and purity ofdevotion to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). Unfortunately, we area people—even many in the church—who have been takencaptive through philosophy and empty deception according tothe tradition of men, and the elementary principles of theworld, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8).

The Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of theimpossible! Nothing is too difficult for him. He can speak thecosmos into existence, form man from dust and form womanfrom a rib (Jeremiah 32:17, 27).

It is the prayer of this author that every reader of this bookwill realize that they are living out their lives in a faith-basedworldview. Either you have placed your faith in the idea ofeternal matter, or your faith is resting in the eternal God of theBible. Either idea has its consequences! Where have youplaced your faith and trust concerning your eternal destiny?Never forget that eternity is a very long time compared to thislittle flick of time we spend on earth! But you can know forsure where you will spend eternity.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal lifethrough Jesus Christ our Lord…For whosoever shall callupon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 6:23,10:13).




#10

The Woodpecker

If there is any animal that breaks the rules of evolution insuch a way that it could not possibly have evolved, then itwould need God as its Creator. The woodpecker is anexample of such an animal. And if there is any animal (likethe woodpecker) that must have needed God to create it, whynot believe in God as the creator of everything else as well?

The woodpecker’s beak is unlike that of other birds. It isdesigned to hammer its way into the hardest of trees. If thewoodpecker evolved, how would it develop its thick, toughbeak? Let’s suppose some bird decided that there must be allkinds of little critters, which would be good for lunch, hiddenbeneath the bark of trees. This bird decided to peck throughthe bark and into the hardwood tree. On first peck, this birddiscovered problems with the way it was put together. Its beakshattered when it slammed against the tree, its tail feathersbroke, and it developed a migraine-strength headache.

With a shattered beak, the little bird was unable to eat andso it died. Now this bird began to think, “I must evolve athicker beak and stronger tail feathers and something to helpprevent headaches.” Of course not! Dead animals cannotevolve anything. Yet the woodpecker not only has anindustrial-strength beak, it also has a special cartilagebetween its head and beak to absorb some of the shock fromthe continuous drumming. Woodpeckers go home at nightwithout a headache.

265

To help with the absorption of the constant pounding, thewoodpecker has uniquely resilient tail feathers. It uses its tailfeathers and feet to form a tripod effect as it clings to the tree.Even its feet are specially designed to enable it to move up,down, and around, vertical tree trunks. The feet of thewoodpecker have two toes in front and two toes in back. Mostother birds have three toes in front and one in back.

This two-plus-two toe pattern...along with stiff yet elastic tailfeathers, allows a woodpecker to grasp a tree firmly and balanceitself on a vertical surface. When the woodpecker braces itself tochisel a hole, the tail feathers bend and spread, buttressing thebird against the rough tree surface. In this way feet and tail forman effective tripod to stabilize the blows of hammering intowood.160

Suppose that somehow a bird, knowing there was lunch inthose trees, developed the strong beak, the shock absorbercartilage between the beak and the skull, the ability to moveits head faster than you can tap fingers, the “two-plus-two”feet and the super stiff, yet, elastic tail feathers. This bird stillhas a major problem. It will starve to death. How could it dragits lunch out of the little insect tunnels in the tree? Have youever attempted to drag an insect larva out of a tunnel? Theyhang on!

God has taken care of the woodpecker by creating in it atongue that is several times longer than the average bird’stongue. Lester and Bohlin comment:

...the tongue of a woodpecker is in a class by itself. Whenchiseling into a tree, the woodpecker will occasionally comeacross insect tunnels. Its tongue is long and slender and is usedto probe these tunnels for insects. The tip is like a spearhead witha number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitatessecuring the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky


160 Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to BiologicalChange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 24.

glue-like substance coats the tongue to aid in this process aswell.161

What a fascinating creation! Not only does thewoodpecker have little barbs on the tip of its tongue, it is alsoa mini-glue factory. And the glue sticks securely to insects butdoes not stick to the beak of the woodpecker. Aren’t God’screations marvelous!

But this is not all. Most birds have a tongue and a beakabout the same length. The tongue of the woodpecker hasevolutionists scratching their heads. It can be stretched farbeyond the tip of the woodpecker’s beak as it searches thelarval tunnels for food. The animal kingdom displays no othertongues quite like that of the woodpecker. The tongue of somewoodpeckers does not come from its throat up into its mouthlike other creatures. For example, the European Greenwoodpecker’s tongue goes down the throat, out the back ofthe neck “...around the back of the skull beneath the skin, andover the top between the eyes, terminating usually just belowthe eye socket.”162 In some woodpeckers the tongue exits theskull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of thenostrils! How would this evolve? And from what ancestor didthe woodpecker inherit its special beak, feet, tail feathers,shock absorbing cartilage, thicker skull and unique tongue?

Did you know that a woodpecker opens and closes itseyes in between each peck? In between each rapid-fire peckthe little bird opens its eyes, focuses, aims its beak, closes itseyes and then hits the tree with its pointed beak. Not onlydoes the woodpecker close its eyes to keep the wood chipsout, but also for another very important reason. Scientistshave measured the force of the impact of the bird’s headagainst the hardwood tree. The force is so powerful that if thebird did not close its eyes it would pop its eyeballs out! Have

The Woodpecker 267

161 Ibid., p. 24.162 Ibid., p. 25.

you ever seen a blind woodpecker? They never forget to closetheir eyes. Only God could design this!

If evolution is true and if birds came from reptiles, manyother changes would be necessitated. Many bones inwoodpeckers (birds) are hollow to make them lighter forflight, but reptile bones are heavy. Birds do not have a bladderlike reptiles do. This also helps to keep their weight down.They do not have to carry extra water-weight into their flight.

When woodpeckers and other birds sit on a branch theirtoes are attached to ligaments in such a way that the more theyrelax, the tighter their toes grasp the branch. This is the reasona strong wind can be blowing against a woodpecker sleepingon a branch and the bird does not blow off!

The woodpecker displays the glory of his Creator who isalso our Creator. Why would an evolutionist study a marvelof God’s creation such as the woodpecker and still refuse tobelieve in God the Creator? Only one answer seems to makesense! Pride! Pride! Pride!

Adrian Forsyth, evolutionist and expert on birds writes thefollowing about a barn swallow (I’m sure it applies towoodpeckers as well):

Darwin, however, freed the contemplative naturalist from thatstatic point of view [that the God of the Bible created birds, Ed.].As a consequence, every natural object offers our imaginations ahistory and biography. Rather than simply admiring the nest as awork woven without hands, we wonder how it came here andwhat its future is. More importantly, we begin to realize that barnswallows have not been passive pawns of omnipotent creation.They have had a role in their own fate.163

“Rational,” humanistic man thinks that he himself is the“...master of his fate and the captain of his soul.” Thisblinding pride does not allow the intrusion of a personal


163 Adrian Forsyth, The Nature of Birds (Ontario, Canada: Camden housePublishing, 1988), p. 16.

sovereign Creator and God, but rather sees man as thepinnacle of all that is. The time has come for us to humbleourselves and bow before our infinitely righteous AlmightyCreator!

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humblethemselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from theirwicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgivetheir sin, and will heal their land.

Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent untothe prayer that is made in this place (2 Chronicles 7:14,15).

Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothedwith humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth graceto the humble.

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand ofGod, that he may exalt you in due time:

Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you(1 Peter 5:5b-7).

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but inlowliness of mind let each esteem the other better thanthemselves.

Look not every man on his own things, but every manalso on the things of others.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to

be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him

the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled

himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death ofthe cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and givenhim a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, ofthings in heaven, and things in earth, and things under theearth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ isLord, to the glory of God the Father [Philippians 2:3-11,Emphasis added].

The Woodpecker 269

Prayer

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thylovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tendermercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly frommine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For Iacknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever beforeme. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evilin thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thouspeakest, and be clear when thou judgest...Purge me withhyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiterthan snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the boneswhich thou has broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from mysins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a cleanheart, O God...” (Psalm 51:1-4, 7-10a).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,who hath blessed me with all spiritual blessings in heavenlyplaces in Christ: According as he hath chosen me in himbefore the foundation of the world, that I should be holy andwithout blame before him in love: Having predestinated meunto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of theglory of his grace, wherein he hath made me accepted in thebeloved. In whom I have redemption through his blood, theforgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace[Ephesians 1:3-7 (personal application paraphrase)].

Lord Jesus, I believe in You as my Lord and Savior. Helpme to walk worthy of You unto all pleasing, being fruitful inevery good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God(Adapted from Colossians 1:10).

270

CONCLUSION

You do not have to throw out your brains or any true,scientifically testable and verifiable science to believe in aliteral six, 24-hour day creation that took place approximatelysix thousand years ago. We can believe that the Creator, theLord and Savior Jesus Christ, created everything fullyfunctional and mature. He displayed His ability to act withoutthe human necessity of time by His miracles. Science that“proves” billions of years is based on many insupportable andunreasonable assumptions, fostered by the religion ofHumanism, and fueled by the desire to be politically correct.

So we can believe the Bible as it addresses origins eventhough it does not tell us everything. If certain types of“science” contradict the Scriptures, we can be certain thatthese “sciences” are either mistaken or misinterpreted ormisunderstood—because the Scriptures are eternal truth. TheBible is not exhaustive when it deals with science, but what itsays is true! (See John 17:17; 8:32.)

Evolutionists admit to each other that “...the creationistshave the better argument.” This is because what we see in lifeand in the fossils does not display the emerging kinds ofplants or animals that are so necessary to fulfill even thedefinition of macroevolution. Evolution from one cell to manis not scientifically observable at all. As my friend MikeRiddle likes to say, “Evolution has no explanation for lifeforms utilizing all left handed amino acids, no explanation forlife starting with or without an oxygen atmosphere, noexplanation for life starting in the ocean, and no explanationfor the origin of information?”164

164 See: Mark Riddle, The Origin of Life Equipping Manual (Training ETC,6619 132nd Ave. NE, PMB 239, Kirkland, WA 98033-8627). E-mail:[email protected]

271

The universe is young—on the order of several thousand,not billions, of years old. Man, dinosaur and mastodonwalked the earth at the same time. The missing links aremissing! The transitional forms of life between the differentkinds of plants and animals needed to prove evolution to betrue have never been found! God created discrete plants andanimals in The Beginning; with minor variations, these arewhat we see today. Mutations in the genes do not generatenew life forms or even improve present life forms. Mutationsharm or kill the organism into which they come. Prehistoricman was ape, monkey or man and not some geneticallyevolving apelike man or manlike ape.

The religious quest to prove evolution from the Big Bangto man will occupy the singular life of many, but will end indespair for all who pursue this myth of evolutionary faith.

Macroevolution is the attempt to answer the bigquestions: “How did I get here?” “Who am I?” and “Wheream I going?” without belief in God. God Himself says:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. 14:1).

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vaindeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of theworld, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth fromthe Lord (Jeremiah 17:5).

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is notin man that walketh to direct his steps (Jeremiah 10:23).

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the endthereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).


The conflict that started in Genesis 3 still rages today forthe hearts and minds of people, yet the battle has already beenwon at the cross of Calvary.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in yourbody, and in your spirit, which are God’s (1 Corinthians6:20).

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed withcorruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vainconversation received by tradition from your fathers; Butwith the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb withoutblemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:18,19).

And having made peace through the blood of his cross, byhim to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say,whether they be things in earth, or in heaven (Colossians1:20).

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while wewere yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, andshalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him fromthe dead, thou shalt be saved (Romans 10:9).

Psalm 1 tells us there are only two ways to walk in thisworld—on the path of the wicked, or the path of the righteous.God has revealed Himself in Creation and through the writtenWord as the “right way.” We will all some day stand beforeLord and King Jesus to answer for our lives lived in thisworld, and whether they have been lived for His eternal gloryand praise, or for the praise of the power and glory of thisworld. Since the Fall of Genesis 3, man has been moreinterested in the approval of men, rather than the approval ofGod (John 5:44; 12:43). We compare ourselves withourselves instead of with Christ and in so doing commit agreat error (2 Corinthians 10:12)!

Conclusion 273

Even as “professing Christians,” we have become apeople who call “evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20). Morethan anything else in these deceptive times in which we live,we have allowed ourselves to be “corrupted from thesimplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). We have notbrought “...into captivity every thought to the obedience ofChrist” (2 Cor. 10:5).

My challenge to Christian and non-Christian is to re-examine where our faith is actually invested. Is it possible thatwe have been seduced by the world’s convincing “argumentsof academia,” impressive credentials and the ensuing“success, power, and prominence” that come from findingtruth apart from God’s Word? His Word is truth (John 17:17);it is eternal, living and active (Heb. 4:12), and will not returnvoid (Isa. 55:11).

The non-verifiable “assumptions” of the scientificcommunity are accepted without question in our hi-tech,sophisticated, humanistic, impersonal “politically correct”society...even by the majority of professing Christians whohide behind the hypocrisy of being “theistic evolutionists.”(The theistic evolutionists say: “Yes, I’ll acknowledge thatthere is a God, but He’s not powerful enough to do anythingother than to set the wheels in motion and let macroevolutiontake over!” Since any form of macroevolution is unbiblical, itis therefore sin to be a true Christian and hold to old universeevolutionary ideas. It is making God what we want Him to be.It is making God in our image. This is not much different thanmaking a golden calf, is it?)

If professing Christians were in God’s Word as much, ormore than we are in the secular world’s beliefs, then wewould afford ourselves the opportunity to grow in the graceand knowledge of God’s ways and to have the empowermentof the Holy Spirit to lead us into all understanding. 1 Cor.3:18,19b states: “Let no man deceive himself. If any man


among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let himbecome a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of thisworld is foolishness with God.” Macroevolution is part ofthe wisdom of this world!

The bottom line always comes back to faith. Our ideas dohave consequences! It is reported that Napoleon once said,“In the end the sword is always conquered by the mind.” Arewe going to believe by faith in eternal matter and energy, oreternal God? We all live by faith in one system or the other.No man can reason his way to saving faith in God becauseGod is infinite and we are finite. He is the creator, and we arethe created. He is holy, but we are sinful.

There is a great chasm caused by sin that separates the all-powerful God and Creator of the universe from His fallencreatures (us). When we refuse to accept our position underGod in His creation (because of pride and rebellion), then wetend to look for comfortable alternatives. These alternativesallow us to escape from being created in the image of God andfrom being responsible to Him. They allow us to beindependent from God, which will ultimately result in deathand eternal separation from Him. Evolution is one of thesealternatives!

Many times creationists are accused of trying to “discreditscience” or scientists, an accusation which simply is not true.“Origins Science,” as we know it, is based on manyassumptions, which, by definition, cannot be proved.Assumptions become “truth” when the credentialed, powerfulpeople of the world’s system arrange data, and “logically”argue their case [see Chapter 10] while the “Christian”community stands by either accepting (they don’t know whatthe Bible says), or defaulting, in that they don’t have enoughconviction to study the data and speak out for a creationistinterpretation of factual science.

Conclusion 275

CHRIST DIED FOR PROUD SINNERSThe greatest truth that can ever be realized in this life is

that Christ died for sinners.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God(Romans 3:23).

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. Fortherefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because wetrust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men,specially of those that believe (1 Timothy 4:9,10).

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some mencount slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willingthat any should perish, but that all should come torepentance (2 Peter 3:9).

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angelsfor the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man(Hebrews 2:9).

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appearedto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldlylusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in thispresent world; looking for that blessed hope, and the gloriousappearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from alliniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous ofgood works (Titus 2:11-14).

God gave His only begotten son to accomplish that act oflove. Whether we are an unbelieving evolutionist, theisticevolutionist, or creationist is not the main issue. The issue is:“To whom will we bow for our eternal destiny?” Only prideand rebellion will keep us from enjoying that eternal rest inour Creator/Savior’s complete forgiveness. We must realizethat our salvation is provided by our Creator, Who is ourRedeemer. It is not the Big Bang that will save us, but our


Creator-Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who has spokenthrough time and space with His life and His Word, the Bible!

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begottenSon, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, buthave everlasting life (John 3:16).

But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and aneverlasting King: at His wrath the earth shall tremble, andthe nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. He hathmade the earth by his power, he hath established the worldby his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by hisdiscretion (Jeremiah 10:10, 12).

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even myhands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host haveI commanded (Isaiah 45:12).

Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hathwrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing,and the breath of all mankind (Job 12:9,10).

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and Iwill give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me;for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest untoyour souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light(Matthew 11:28-30).

Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.Amen (Matthew 28:20b).

Conclusion 277

EPILOGUEOn February 12, 2002, when the revision of this book

began in earnest, Dr. Sundarsingh Daniel arrived to help. Weread the Days of Praise devotional together. This littledevotional booklet comes from the Institute for CreationResearch on a quarterly basis. It is excellent and readilyavailable at www.ICR.org. The February 12th devotionalseemed so appropriate that I am reproducing it for you asfollows:

“How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and thescorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge”(Proverbs 1:22)?

This ancient question by the wise man, Solomon, was posedalmost 3000 years ago and is still relevant today. “How long?” heasked. How long will men continue to scoff at true knowledge?“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but foolsdespise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7).

The answer to your question, Solomon, would have been3000 years at least! Peter prophesied “that there shall come in thelast days scoffers...saying, Where is the promise of His coming”(2 Peter 3:3,4)? And Paul said “that in the last days perilous timesshall come. For men shall be...boasters, proud, blasphemers....Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of thetruth” (2 Timothy 3:1,2,7).

Throughout history men have scorned the true knowledge ofGod and His Creation. Peter says they “willingly are ignorant,”and Paul says they are “without excuse” (2 Peter 3:5; Romans1:20), but they “delight in their scorning” nonetheless.

It is remarkable that their hatred of God’s true knowledge iscloaked in a robe of scientism and evolutionary pseudo-knowledge that even deceives many professing Christians.“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans1:22), despising the true wisdom and instruction of God’s word.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not accordingto this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

278

www.icr.org

Those who scorn God’s word have no light of their own, despitetheir scientific pretensions. “Wise men lay up knowledge: but themouth of the foolish is near destruction” (Proverbs 10:14). HMM

Since Dr. Henry Morris got me started on this quest in1971 with The Genesis Flood, I would like to leave you withthis final thought in his words:

If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is noevidence whatever that evolution is occurring today—that is, truevertical evolution, from some simpler kind to some morecomplex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve fromhydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolvefrom a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of thissort. Not only has no one ever observed true evolution in action,no one knows how evolution works, or even how it might work.Since no one has ever seen it happen (despite thousands ofexperiments that have tried to produce it), and no one yet hascome up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seemthat it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world isconcerned. This does not prove it did not happen in the past, butthe evolutionist should recognize that evolution is not sciencesince it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith[The Defender’s Study Bible, Appendix 3].

Epilogue 279

Bristle-cone pine tree . . . . . . . . . .233Brontosaurus . . . . . . . . . . . . .171,172Building blocks . .49,100,251,260,261Cain (wife) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Cambrian Explosion . . . . . . . . .65,66Carbon 14 (C14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176Cavemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126Cell . . . . .29,43-49,52,73,81,82,96,98,

100,109,193,194,206,212,246,251,253,254,258,259,271

Cell membrane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48,49Chance . . . .21,27,40-42,46,47,51,60,

66,68,88,108,128,131,134,144,159,160,191,204,205,209-211,230

Chemicals . . . . . . .40-43,46-50,63,66,85,205,212,279

Chernobyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197,206Chicken egg . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209-211Chuckwalla lizard . . . . . . . . .249-250Closed System . . . . . . . . . . . .216,219Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . .166,213,240-242Cold-blooded . . .73,168,170,171,202,

204,250,260Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74,78Created fully mature . . . .29,30,43,77,

213,232Cretaceous rock . . . . . . . . . . .173,174Cro-magnon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112Darwinian Evolution . . .10,96,97,251Dating assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . .218Dating rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217,218Death . . .23,29,64,65,66,67,69,79,85,

97,107,142,143,148,160,166,174,181,197,213,222,263,266,269,272,275

Dinosaur(s) . . . . . . .30,31,70,152,157,162,168-174,272

Dinosaur mystery . . . . . .162,168,170Dinosaur paintings . . . . . . . . . . . .174Divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28,29,222DNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48,193,194Egg(s) . . . . . . . .57-60,87,88,152,160,

209,210,252,257Electrons . . . . . . . . . . . .37,47,52,183

Adam . . . . . . . .27-31,34,35,67,72,73,76,97,139,142-144,155,161,166,175,184,213,222,223,232,239

Adaptation . . . . . . . . .73,131,159,194Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .165,202-204,239Ambulocetus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71,72Amino Acid . . . . . . . . .49,99,261,271Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Angler Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159-161Anthropic Principle . . . . . . . . .63,127Anthropological art . . . . . . . .119,120Appearance of age . . . . .30,32,43,141Ararat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77,153Archaeopteryx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34,77,149-154Assume(d) . .22,36,43-47,50,115,192,

214-219,229,234,236,237Assuming . . . . . .83,123,215,219,233Assumption(s) . .21,36,43-45,125,135,

145,186,199,212,214,216-221,228-231,236,237,263,271,274,275

Atheist(ic) . . . . . . .22,43,51,55,64,65,69,97117,137

Atmosphere . . . .49,63,68,72,128,142,156,164,166,168-170,172,175,177,181,183,213,243,253,261,271

Atmospheric heaven . . . . . . .156,163Australopithecines . . . . . . . . .115,116Australopithecus . . . . . . . . . . .115,116Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74-78Basilosaurus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189-191Big Bang . . . .21-24,29,30,32,70,146,

217,231,232,236,237,244,272,276Biogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46,49Birds . . . .35,44,45,57,60,68,70,72,84,

91-93,98,134,145,152,153,156,162163,165,168,175,184,202,203,252,255,265-268

Black andYellow Garden Spider . . . . . .87-90

Bombardier Beetle . . . . . . . . . . .39-42Book of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151Brainwashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212


Subject Index

Subject Index 281

Elohim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Enzymes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39,100Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . .23,24,97,213Entropy . . . . . .24,65,66,143,239,244Erosion rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243Estivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154Eternity . . . . . . . . . . .23,138,155,263Euclidean Geometry . . . . . . .229,230Eve . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30,35,65,76,144Evolution of amphibians . . . .201-202Evolution of birds . . . . . . . . . . . . .202Evolution of fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201Evolution of plants . . . . .199,201,202Expanse . . .156,162,163,183,184,239Extinct(ion) . . .64-66,69,110,115,122,

131,161,168,170,173,181,195,200Faith . . .11-14,21-25,52,53,55,81-85,

108,114,119,120,128,140,144,146,147,151,168,186,195,204,212,221,224,261,263,272,274,275,279

Fall . . . . .14,67,142,143,161,169,273Firmament . . . . .55,129,139,156,162,

163,175,176,133First Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45,46Fittest . . . . . .37,64,122,133,134,161,

168,194,195Flood . . . . . .14,25,34,72,77,79,97,98,

147-157,161-185,213,222,233,234,238,239,242,246,279

Flying reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Fossil(s) . . .11,16,25,65-67,71,91-97,

101,106,109-125,131,132,142,143,150,157,167,166,172,178,199,201,202,245,246,260,262,271

Fossil thorns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143Frozen animals . . . . . . . .178,180-182Fully functional . . . . .31,32,39-41,49,

92,131-133,161,191,193,271Gap(s) . . . . .25,29,34,35,134,141-144Gap Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141,144Gecko lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . .105-107Genealogical Tables . . . . . .34,35,212Genetic drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Genetic information .74,194-196,206

Genetic variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Geocentricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138Geologic clocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224Gigantism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168,172Giraffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131-134Gradualistic evolution . . . . . . . . . .94Great Toe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121,122Greenhouse . . .165,166,171,176,178,

181,246Greenhouse effect . . . . . . . . .165,166Guppies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196,197Halos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240-242Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202-204,239Heavens . . . . .19,36,55,100,102,129,

141,151,155-157,163,186,187,207,220,222,225,231,238,247,277

Heidelberg Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115Hell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83,147Hibernation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153,154Homo erectus . . . . . . . . .112,114,115Homo sapiens . . . . . . .28,64,112-115Hubble Space Telescope . . . . . . . .226Human ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107-108Human footprints . . . . . . . . . . . . .173Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . .69,262,271Hyperbaric rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . .164Ice Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179,180,182Incubator Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57-60Information . . .11,13,41,73,74,80,98,

105,117,169,193-196,205,206,237,262,271

Instant adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Instant petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . .246Invictus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Java Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114Jesus

Christ Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14,269Jesus . . . .26,28,31-33,49,66,69,84,

119,142,146,151,223,269,273,276Jesus Christ . . .15,21,26,66,84,144,

146,263,269,270,276Lord Jesus . . . . .21,26,28,33,35,45,

48,54,63,84,134,145-147,151,161,258,270,271,273

Lord Jesus Christ . . . .15,26,55,134,


144,148,151,200,211,223,246,263,270,277

Judgment(s) . . . . .34,66,76,79,84,129,140,149-151,156,181,242

Jupiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49,237,243Kinds . . . . . .35,45,46,62,65,69,73,74,

76,91-93,98,134,152,193,196,197,260,271,272,279

Krakatau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177Lake of Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147Lamech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Language(s) . . . . . . . .27,31,46,74-78,

95,129,153,193,194Law of Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Light . . . . . . . .26,30,45,49,69,83,127,

138,139,142,148,159-161,164,165,167,186,226-232,235,279

Longevity of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175Lucy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115,116,123Macroevolution . . .11,37,46,73,81,82,

160,185,186,212,261,271-275Macrouniverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141Magnetic field . . . . .127,203,238,239Malchus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Mammoth(s) . . . . . . . . . .172,178-181Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28,146Matter . . . . . . . . . .11,21-24,27,36,55,

81,206,263,275Maturity (Appearance of Age) .30,32Meat eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169Meteorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176Methuselah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175Microevolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73,74Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204Miracle(s) . . . . . . . . .31,32,36,75,108,

145,199,205,271Missing link(s) . . . .29,91-94,100,111,

133,259,260,272Missing mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Mississippi River . . . . . . . . . . . . .233Molecular Biology . . . . . . .98,99,251Monkey(s) . . . . . .28,29,69,85,96,109,

116,119-121,123,127,259,272Moon . . . . . . . .26,45,78,128,137,141,

184,186,207,228,234-237,240

Moon Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . .235,236Mother Nature . . . . . . . . .41,145,263Mount St. Helens . . . . . . . . . .244,245Mutation(s) . . . . . .11,16,41,106,122,

161,175,192-198,204,206,272Neandert(h)al . .110,112,115,258,259Nebraska Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111Neutrino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27,240New Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12,37,148Niagara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234Noah . . . . . . . .25,34,72,73,77-79,97,

147-157,165,170,172,178,180,181,184,185,213,242

Non-Euclidean Geometry . . .229,230Ophrys Orchid . . . . . . . . . . . .199-201Orangutans . . . . . . . . . .100,101,109,

116,117,120Overheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166Oxygen . . . . . . .63,127,132,164,169,

171,191,210,271Pacific Golden Plover . .202-204,239Pakicetus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Paluxy River . . . . . . . . . . . . .173,174Peking Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112-114Peppered Moth . . . . . . . . . . .251,252Piltdown Man . . . . . . . . .110,111,113Planetary rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243Plant evolution . . . . . . . .199,201,202Politically correct . . . . . . . .11,23,79,

170,271,274Poodle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73,196Population(s) . . .75,123,124,125,196Poynting-Robertson Effect . . . . . .225Prehistoric man . . . . . . . .76,109,112,

126,142,272Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47,122Progressive creationism . . . .11,23,30,

37,70,97,98,139,140,143,222Primate(s) . . . . . .28,109,120,121,122Protein(s) . . . . . .49,100,159,193,261Pteranodons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Pterodactyls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Pterosaurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Punctuated Equilibrium . . . . . . . . .97Races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52,61,76,77

Subject Index 283

Radiation . . . . .163-166,175,197,198,206,218,241

Radiohalos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240-242Rainbow . . .72,154,155,165,184,185Ramapithecus . . . . .100,101,109,110Receding Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234Reptile(s) . . . . . .44,68,70,93,99,145,

168,170-172,202,257,268Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . .67,146-148Resurrection of Damnation . . .67,147Resurrection of Life . . . . . . . . . . . .67Riemannian Math . . . . . . . . . . . . .229River sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243Savior . . . . . . . . .15,21,27,31,84,100,

144,146,148,154,156,270,271,276Scientific Method . . . . . .19,79,80,81,

96,170,219Second Law of Thermodynamics .24Shem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34,149Short-term comets . . . . . . . . . . . .237Sin . . . . . .21,34,67,69,75,84,97,126,

129,137,140,142,143,147,149-151,161,169,222,226,265,269,270,273,274-276

Solar shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175Speciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Species . . . .52,57-64,71,73,87,91-93,

99,106,111,112,115,117,123,133,179,195,196,199,200,253,254,279

Speed of Light . . . . .226,227,231,232Star clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244Star light . . . . . . . . . .30,186,226-232Stars . . . . .24,26,30,45,46,52,68,141,

142,163,184,186,203,207,225-232,235,237,238,240,244,279

Stellar heaven . . . . . . . . . . . .163,225Stylidium Orchid . . . . . . . . . .199-201Sumerian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Sun . . . . . . .45,51,59,66,68,69,93-95,

128,129,141,142,163,165,167,168,175,184,186,203,225,227,232,235,237,239,240,243,250

Survival of the fittest . . . . .37,64,122,133,134,161,168,194,195

Syllogism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194

Ten Commandments . . . . . . .135,136,140,141

Theistic evolution . . . .11,37,73,96,97,139,140,141,143,222

Theistic evolutionist . . . .21,23,29,70,98,144,192,239,274,276

Third heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . .151,163Three Mile Island . . . . . . . . . .197,206Tower of Babel . . . . . . . . . . .74,76-78Transitional forms . . .71,92,93,96,97,

134,259,260,272Tree of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259,260Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77,153Tyrannosaurus rex . . . . . . . . .169,17124-hour creation days . . . . . . . . . .21624-hour day(s) . . . .11,19,36,135-140,

144,167,216,220,271Unbelief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Unknown(s) . . . . . . . . . . .50,215-217Virgin birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146-148Virgin Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28,146Volcano(es) . . . . . . .177,178,237,261Water canopy . . . . . .72,155,162-168,

172,175-183,213Warm-blooded . . . . . .73,170,171,179,

202,204,260Whales . . . . . . . . . . .68,70-72,92,260Wine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20,31,32,156Woodpecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265-269Workweek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137Worldview . . . . . .10-12,23,65,77,92,

143,255,262,263Yom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137,138Young earth . . . . . . .147,220,222-224,

234,240,246Young rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . .233-234Young universe . . . .212,220,232,244Zeroeth Entropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24


Ackerman, Paul D. . . . . . . . . .241,242Adler, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64Alberts, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251Andrews, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Angier, Natalie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Asimov, Isaac . . . . . . . . .44,53,84,175Augros, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Austin, Dr. Steven A. . . . .44,244,245Autumn, Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106Ayala, Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194Barker, Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87-89Barnes, Dr. Thomas G. . . . . . . . . .238Barrick, Reese E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .171Baugh, Dr. Carl E. . . . . . . . . .173,174Baumgardner, John . . . . .164,181,238Bird, W. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111Bohlin, Raymond G. . . . .161,266,267Boornazian, Adam . . . . . . . . . . . .239Boule, Marcellin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114Boyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199Bradley, Walter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Brashler, William . . . . . . . . . . . . .113Brown, Jr., Dr. Walter T. . . . . .72,145,

192,242,243Cahill, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119Chadwick, Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Chaffin, Eugene . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220Cobley, L. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199Corner, Dr. E. J. H. . . . . . . . .199,201Coxeter, H. S. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . .230Crenson, Matt . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93,171Crow, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198Cuozzo, Dr. Jack . . . . . . . . . .258,259Daniel, Sundarsingh . . . . . . . . . . .278Darwin, Charles . . . . . . .52,53,61,62,

197,251,268Darwin, Frances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Davidheizer, Dr. Bolton . . . . . . . . .14Davis, J. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164Davis, Percival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99Dawkins, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . .118De Chardin, Teilhard . . . . . . .111,113Denton, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . .99,100Devine, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131,210

Digby, Bassett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166Dillow, Dr. Joseph . . . . .168,175,179Dobzhansky, Theodosius . . . . . . .195Dreves, Denis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189Dubois, Dr. Eugene . . . . . . . . . . .114Eddy, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239Edey, Maitland A. . . . . . .112,113,115Eiseley, Dr. Loren . . . . . . . . .198,199Eldredge, Niles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185Fichter, Georges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Flint, W. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Forsyth, Adrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268Futuyma, Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . .251Gaffin, Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253Gamkrelidze, Thomas . . . . . . . . . .77Gentry, Robert V. . . . . . . . . .240-243Gish, Duane . . . . . . . . . . . .41,42,117Gitt, Werner . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205,206Goldberg, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62,63Goldberger, Robert F. . . . . . . . .81,82Gould, Dr. Stephen Jay . .64,84,91-97

185,260Gow, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177Green, David E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .81,82Haeckel, Ernst . . . . . . . . . . . .251-256Ham, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185,219Hapgood, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . .166Henley, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Hoefnagels, Marielle . . . . . . . . . .253Hubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232,236Humphrys, Russell . . . . .164,227,231Hunt, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127Huse, Scott .67,68,70,72,145,225,237Isaak, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39,40Ivanov, Vyacheslav . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Jain, K. K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164Janus, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . .113Johanson, Donald C. . . . . . . .112-116Johnson, Philip E. . . . . . . . . . . .24,25Jones, Floyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Kenyon, Dean H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99Kerkut, Dr. G. A. . . . . . . . .44,45,186Klotz, J. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121Kofahl, Dr. Robert . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Index of Authors

Index of Authors 285

Kosterlitz, Hans . . . . . . . . . . . . .62,63Leakey, Louis and Mary . . . . . . .109Leakey, Richard E. . . . . . . . . . . . .109Lester, Lane P. . . . . . . . . . . . .161,266Lewis, Ricki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253Lewontin, Richard . . . . . . .54,55,195Libby, Willard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213Lipscomb, David . . . . . . . . . . . . .107Long, Dr. Leon E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Lubenow, Marvin . . . . . .109,114,117Lydekker, G. Richard . . . . . . . . . .181Macleod, Anna M. . . . . . . . . . . . .199Mader, J. T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164Marshall, A.J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202Martin, C.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197Matthews, Dr. L. Harrison . . . .52,53Mauger, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218Mayr, Dr. Ernst . . . . . . .53,62,84,192McKean, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Menninga, Clarence . . . . . . . . . . .240Metcalf, C. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Metherell, Dr. Alexander . . . . . . .223Millar, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110Miller, Dr. Stanley . . .49-51,260,261Milton, Richard . . . . . . . .97,117-119Morris, Dr. John . . . . . . . . . .153,186Morris, Dr. Henry M. . .14,47,50,123-

125,152,185,216-219,243,279Niessen, Richard . . . . . . . . . .229,230Noebel, Dr. David . . . . . . . . . . . .185Norman, J. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201Oard, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . .164,182Oliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199Olsen, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Osborn, Henry Fairfield . . . . . . . .111Oxnard, Dr. Chas. . . . . . . . . .116,117Parker, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253Parker, Dr. Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Patton, Dr. Don R. . . . . . . . . .173,174Petersen, Dennis R. . . . . . .50,51,172,

224,225,232-235Petersen, Roger Tory . . . . . . . . . . .57Pilbeam, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100Pitman, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198Raymond, Dr. Percy E. . .111,112,115Richardson, Michael . . . . . . .253-255

Riddle, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271Ross, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . .97,223,240Ruchlis, Hy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80,81Rybka, Theodore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240Ryder, M. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180Sagan, Carl . . . . . .44,53,66,79,84,227Sarfeti, Jonathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Sarich, Dr. Vincent . . . . . . . . .100,101Seymour, Roger S. . . . . . . . . . . .57-59Showers, William . . . . . . . . . . . . .171Simon, Cheryl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177Simons, Elwyn . . . . . . . . . . . .100,101Slichter, Louis B. . . . . . . . . . . . . .235Slusher, Harold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229Snelling, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . .52,220Spetner, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Stahl, Barbara J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202Stanciu, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Steele, DeWitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250Swinton, W. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202Tahmisian, Dr. T. N. . . . . . . . . . . . .53Taurog, Drs. Alvin and Joel . . .93-96Taylor, Paul S. . . . . . . . . . . . .109,223Thaxton, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . .46,50Thompson, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Thompson, W. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . .197Todd, Scott C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Urey, Harold . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260,261Van Bebber, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . .223Van Till, Howard J. . . . . . . . . . . . .240Von Braun, Dr. Werner . . . . . . . . . .51Vardiman, Larry . . . . . . .164,183,220Wagner, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . .105,107Walker, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Watson, D.M.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .53,54Watson, Dr. Lyall . . . . . . . . . . .95,117Wells, Dr. Jonathan . . . . . . . .251,261Whitcomb, John .14,144,152,221,222Willis, Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110Wilson, Allan . . . . . . . . . . . . .100,101Winchester, A. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . .197Woodmorappe, Dr. John . . . . . . . .152Wysong, R. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225Young, Davis A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240Zage, Wayne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229Zuckerman, Dr. Solly . . . . . . . . . .116


Acts 3:18-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1422 Chronicles 7:14,15. . . . . . . . . . . 2692 Chronicles 20:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Colossians 1 . . . . . 26,31,211,220,223Colossians 1:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Colossians 1:15-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Colossians 1:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183Colossians 1:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Colossians 2:8 . . . . . 185,255,263,272Colossians 3:12,13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Corinthians 3:18,19b . . . . . . . . . 2741 Corinthians 7:10-16. . . . . . . . . . . 291 Corinthians 15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Corinthians 15:38-39. . . . . . . . . . 691 Corinthians 15:39,41 . . . . . . . 45,922 Corinthians 3:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Corinthians 10:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2742 Corinthians 11:3 . . . . . 186,263,274Deuteronomy 24:1-5. . . . . . . . . . . . 29Ephesians 1:3-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Ephesians 4:25-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Ephesians 5:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Ephesians 6:11b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Exodus 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Exodus 20:1-20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136Exodus 20:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,141Genesis 1 . . . 19,31,32,68,69,135-140,

144,145,162,174,222,223Genesis 1-11 . . . . 74,145,148,220,222Genesis 1:1 . . . . . . . . . 36,37,141-144Genesis 1:2 . . . . . . . . . 68,70,141-144Genesis 1:3-19; 1:11-19; 1:28 . . . . 69Genesis 1:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Genesis 1:6-8 . . . . . . . . . 156,162,176Genesis 1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,162Genesis 1:11 . . . . . . . 62,68,69,92,260Genesis 1:12 . . . . . . . . . 62,69,92,145Genesis 1:13; 1:20-26. . . . . . . . . . 145Genesis 1:14 . . . . . . . . . . 139,140,184Genesis 1:14-19 . . . . . . . . 68,225,237Genesis 1:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,235Genesis 1:20 . . . . . . . . 68,69,156,162Genesis 1:20-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,70Genesis 1:21 . . . . . . . 62,68,69,92,260

Genesis 1:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,69,92Genesis 1:25 . . . . . . . . . 62,69,92,260Genesis 1:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Genesis 1:27 . . . . . . . . . . . 28,101,259Genesis 1:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,169Genesis 1:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,169Genesis 1:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,259Genesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,32Genesis 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Genesis 2:5,6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,165Genesis 2:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,126,127Genesis 2:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Genesis 2:21b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Genesis 2:21-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Genesis 2:21-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222Genesis 2:25; 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Genesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Genesis 3:5b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Genesis 3:17b-18a . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Genesis 3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222Genesis 5:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Genesis 5:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Genesis 6-9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Genesis 6:3; 7:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Genesis 6:5; 6:5-14a; 6:17 . . . . . . 149Genesis 6:11; 7:21-23 . . . . . . . . . 150Genesis 7:11,12 . . . . . . . . . . . 175,176Genesis 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Genesis 8:20-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Genesis 8:3,4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,175Genesis 9:1; 11:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Genesis 9:1-5; 9:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 169Genesis 9:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222Genesis 9:11-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184Genesis 11; 11:1-9; 11:5-7 . . . . 74-78Genesis 46:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Hebrews 1. . . . . . . 26,31,211,220,223Hebrews 1:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Hebrews 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Hebrews 4:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Hebrews 11:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Isaiah 5:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274Isaiah 6:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Isaiah 8:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

Scripture Index

Scripture Index 287

Isaiah 9:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Isaiah 14:13,14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Isaiah 40:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Isaiah 40:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,46,226Isaiah 44:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Isaiah 45:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277Isaiah 45:18,21b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Isaiah 48:11. . . . . . . . . . . . 37,148,263Isaiah 55:8-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222Isaiah 55:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Isaiah 65:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Jeremiah 2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Jeremiah 2:32; 3:21; 23:1; 50:6 . . 223Jeremiah 10:6,12,16 . . . . . . . . . . . 157Jeremiah 10:10,12. . . . . . 231,247,277Jeremiah 10:23; 17:5 . . . . . . . . . . 272Jeremiah 32:17,27 . . . . 51,90,204,263Job 12:9,10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277Job 30:l-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126Job 40:15-41:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Job 42:2,5,6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145John 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,211,220,223John 1:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26John 1:4,5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,49John 2; 2:10; 2:11 . . . . . . . . . . . 31,32John 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,90,277John 5:24-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,67John 5:44; 12:43 . . . . . 23,97,148,273John 12:43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,147John 15:5b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7John 17:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,271,274John 18:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Joshua 24:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Jude 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Leviticus 18:5ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Luke 1:27b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,31Luke 1:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,90Luke 6:22,23a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Luke 16:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Luke 17:26, 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Luke 22:50,51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Malachi 2:13-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Mark 6:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Mark 10:6; 10:1-12 . . . . . . . . . . 28,29Matthew 5:31,32; 19:3-12 . . . . . . . 29Matthew 7:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Matthew 11:28-30; 28:20b . . . . . . 277Matthew 19:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Matthew 26:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Matthew 28:19b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Peter 3:8,9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Peter 3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2221 Peter 5:5b-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2692 Peter 3; 3:3-7,10,13 . . . . . . 155-1562 Peter 3:3,4,5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,2782 Peter 3:5-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-1512 Peter 3:8,9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,276Philippians 2:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Philippians 2:3-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269Philippians 2:10,11 . . . . . . . . . . 15,84Proverbs 3:19,20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Proverbs 9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,119Proverbs 14:12 . . . . 23,79,85,174,272Proverbs 23:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,262Psalm 8:3-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Psalm 14:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Psalm 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,129,140Psalm 19:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,163Psalm 31:14,15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Psalm 51:1-4,7-10a . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Psalm 92:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Psalm 102:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Psalm 115:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Psalm 148:1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Revelation 4:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,220Revelation 17:2; 18:3,13. . . . . . . . . 32Revelation 21:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Romans 1 . . . . . . . . 46,52,53,140,160Romans 1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,261Romans 1:18-23. 52,53,63,84,247,261Romans 3:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Romans 5:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,142Romans 5:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Romans 6:23; 10:13 . . . . . . . . . . . 263Romans 8:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Romans 8:22-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Romans 8:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Romans l0:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,273Romans 11:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2221 Timothy 3:3,8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Timothy 4:9,10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Titus 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Additional copies ofThe Evolution of a Creationistare available for $10.95 each.

(This includes postage and handling.)

BULK RATES ARE AVAILABLE

Please contact:

Biblical Discipleship Publishers2212 Chisholm Trail

Rockwall, Texas 75032(972) 771-0568


Our thanks to Steve Greisen of Reel Productionsfor donating the cover of this book

and for producing the videos,

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution Vols. I & II

Reel Productions can be contacted atwww.explorationfilms.com


www.explorationfilms.com

Documents

The Evolution of a Creationist